staticman2

That wasn't a real quote. I guess my sarcasm didn't transmit to text.I found the entire article so ridiculous that for a moment I thought it was satirical.

The actual quote was this:

"Em dashes are great for inserting clarifying details, quick shifts, or sharp asides—without breaking the sentence. I love them. When used well, they add rhythm and emphasis. They help writing flow the way people actually talk."

>Sure, we can reset LLMs at will, but give them memory and continuity, and they definitely do not score zero on the sentience scale.

You've recreated a religious belief known as Animism and phrased it in a faux objective way. ("not score zero on the sentience scale.")

This is somehow not satirical?

"The AI told me splattering em dashes everywhere was what I want—and I, the author of this AI written blog, agrees!"

If you meant a scientific definition why do you keep mentioning philosophy?

An LLM tells me references such as Oxford Dictionary of Science probably include a definition of consciousness but I suppose that would be behind a pay wall so I can't verify it.

Of course you are demanding one that "scientists all agree on" which is an impossibly high bar so I don't think anyone is going to meet you there.

>That's an extremely uncharitable and aggressive take, especially after not bothering to understand at all what I said.

To be clear, my intent wasn't to say you were the one being performative and disingenuous. I was referring to the sort of person you were debating against, the one who thinks every legal issue involving A.I. can be settled by typing "humans are allowed to do it."

Since I replied to you, I can see how what I wrote was confusing. My apologies.

The parent you replied to claimed LLMs are using "mechanism similar enough to what humans do and what humans do is fine."

Parent probably doesn't want his or her brain shredded like an old hard drive despite claiming similar mechanisms whenever it is convinient.

I'm arguing nobody actually believes there are "similar mechanisms" between machines and humans in their revealed preferences in day to day life.

>There's no law limiting a human's top (running) speed but you have speed limits for cars. Maybe you're legally allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon but not an automatic one.

I don't believe this analogy works. If we're talking about transmitting the text of Harry Potter, I believe it would already be illegal for a single human to type it on demand as a service.

If we are talking about remembering the text of Harry Potter but not reciting it on demand, that's not illegal for a human because copyright doesn't govern human memories.

I don't see what copyright law you think needs updating.

Before you assert nobody has defined consciousness you should maybe consult the dictionary?

Another 2 seconds of thought might have told you only a magic genie can "freely" change hardware and software capability.

Humans have to work within whatever constraints accompany being physical things with physical bodies trying to invent software and hardware in the physical world.

Nobody in real life thinks humans and machines are the same thing and actually believes they should have the same legal status. The A.I. enthusiast would not support the legality of shooting them when no longer useful the way a company would shred an old hard drive.

This supposed failure to see the difference between the human mind and a machine whenever someone brings up copyright is peformative and disingenuous.

That analogy ignores what was actually confusing about this topic. A better analogy would be:

Alice has a medical problem related to hill walking so she walks up the hill wearing sneakers, Bob also had a medical problem related to hill walking so he uses a handkerchief to wipe off his sweat while walking up the hill, and Charlie, the out of shape adult, also uses sneakers and a handkerchief but not in a medical way even though his feet hurt without sneakers and he does sweat.

I doubt the distinction between depressed and not depressed is all that clear.

I know scales like BDI 2 assign a number and use terms like:

– BDI-II scoring:

0-13 is considered none or minimal range depression;

14-19 mild depression;

20-28 moderate depression;

29-63 severe depression.

https://strokengine.ca/en/assessments/beck-depression-invent...

There is no objective cutoff point is what I'm saying.

This is a very confusing discussion.

If you live in a Robert Heinlein Stranger in a Strange Land-esque sex positive utopia where you're constantly going around talking about sex to everyone and getting positive reception, talk about it with your CEO as well, I guess?

If I recall correctly there's actually an Animatrix episode where some kid escapes the Matrix by committing suicide. This rhymes with the mystical idea that "reality" is an illusion keeping us from greater truths. Whether this was irresponsible filmmaking is off topic.

I'd prefer to live in a world where A.I. can play make pretend with users, personally speaking.

I don't get it.

If I think that Rabbits and Hares are classified by Wikipedia incorrectly and Ideological Wikipedia Editors are hiding the truth with Disinformation, why would I give the model any credit if it tells the correct answer only if I develop a custom 22 point mammalian biology reasoning checklist that leads it to the Real Truth about Rabbits and Hares?

It certainly doesn't inspire confidence that any other particular question would be answered correctly?

In your example the American CEO said you are family.

Do you frequently tell you mom, dad, brothers, children and in laws about your sex life?

Of course not. Whatever problem the American in this hypothetical is having, name conventions are not likely to help.

What does "safety" mean in this context? Are you asking what incentive Zuckerberg has in not causing the AI apocalypse?

Off the top of my head it would decrease his real estate portfolio value I guess?

I don't have an answer to this- but if the above answer was based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure it may not apply to criminal cases at all. (And the above was probably a generalization that assumes parties in California or some other state the lawyer was familiar with.)

Blogging is a pretty niche activity in general these days.

I think if writing more than 200 words is painful for you, blogging probably isn't for you?

>Artists enjoy doing their art, whether it's writing, reading out loud, playing music.

I guess this is probably generally true. It's really not always true, though. Neil Gaiman told an anecdote on his blog about knowing some writers who hate writing and are miserable.

The fictional TV show The Larry Sanders Show does a good job of finding comedy in the misery of showbusiness: the main character is a neurotic talk show host who is desperate for top rating, jealous of his rivals, and gets no joy from the process of making a hit tv show. I'm not saying most stars are like that, but there's probably some truth there.

I promise this comment will circle back to Elevenlabs:

When my cat died after a few months of cancer treatment, the staff of the animal hospital sent me a condolence card with comments by staff members.

On the one hand, this was a very touching, very human thing to do. On the other hand, this was presumably a work assignment that had to be passed around and completed for staff members to meet their employer's goals, while juggling the other medical and administrative duties at the animal hospital.

So whether this was a good thing or bad thing might depend on how taxing you view it from the staff member's POV.

With the audio book market: it's kind of a similar dichotomy. There's undoubtedly more human touch in the style an audio book is read by an actual human. (Though if that human touch is "stuttering awkwardly because I'm very self aware as I read, you probably wouldn't want to buy my audio book...)

However, for a human to make an audio book, you are asking someone to sit in a room for many hours, being careful not to stutter as they work through a book. If there's joy in that, maybe you see Elevenlabs as an evil company eliminating the human touch in audiobooks. If it's soulless labor, why not replace it with a machine?

That was the incident when Alexander said he didn't want an article about him turning up on the top results in Google when people were considering hiring him as a medical doctor.

Using Alice in Wonderland logic, this somehow meant his fans were meant to declare holy war on the New York Times but not Google.

I imagine they design these AI's to condescend to you with the "you right to question..." languages to increase engagement.

That said, they probably also do this because they don't want the model to double down, start a pissing contest, and argue with you like an online human might if questioned on a mistake it made. So I'm guessing the patronizing language is somewhat functional in influencing how the model responds.

As far as I know AI Studio is always free, even on pay accounts, and you can definetly hit the rate limit.

I feel the term AGI is meaningless but if I'm going to strongman the article.

If your claim is, "AGI's "think" like planes "fly" and submarines "swim".

You only get to make that claim with confidence if you've invented an AGI.

I love this as a science fiction thought experiment but altering the male/ female ratio will never happen.

If someone tried to implement it- aside from the obvious problem of authoritarianism- the resulting male minority would live life in romantic "easy mode" so people who want the best for their kids would want male children and rebel against a system more likely to give them female children who would find romantic prospects difficult.

I suppose if someone invented a way to alter sexuality to allow straight women to opt into becoming gay the romance problem could be mitigated, but I'm guessing that this is impossible given the human brain is only so neuroplastic in adult years.

Doesn't Dickens want us to read the text slowly and imagine a dinosaur stomping around after the flood, horses and dogs dealing with the weather, and all sorts of visuals?

It's not about the amount of words but what is expected by the reader parsing them. The reader is expected to spend a lot of time imagining the non- plot stuff.

>what you speak of is difference between literature and mere communication.

So a novel is not literature unless it uses your preferred writing style?

>But mud fog BLEAKNESS gestures here maybe to social decay, anomie, listlessness, an eternal stupor, impotence of characters and so on.

That passage doesn't introduce any "characters". Perhaps Lord Chancellor will turn out to be one of the novel's characters, but that remains to be seen.

> The painting has a point for the plot AND your pleasure.

There's no need to be so confrontational.

Isaac Asimov is nowhere close to being my favorite writer but I offer this for your amusement. In his autobiography "I, Asimov" he talks about his simple writing style:

>Before Pebble in the Sky was published, Walter Bradbury asked me to do another novel. I did and sent in two sample chapters. The trouble was that now that I was a published writer, I tried to be literary, as I had in that never-to-be- forgotten writing class in high school. Not nearly as badly, of course, but badly enough. Brad gently sent those two chapters back and put me on the right track.

>"Do you know," he said, "how Hemingway would say, 'The sun rose the next morning'?"

>"No," I said, anxiously (I had never read Hemingway) "How would he say it, Brad?"

>Brad said, "He would say, 'The sun rose the next morning.'

>That was enough. It was the best literary lesson I ever had and it took just ten seconds. I did my second novel, which was The Stars, Like Dust-, writing it plainly, and Brad took it.

There's an interesting disconnect between readers who read for the "painting with words" aspect of novels and readers who read solely for the plot.

My first impression on quickly reading that passage is it was very muddy, very very muddy, and nothing plot important had happened yet, but we need dinosaur metaphors to say just how muddy it was.

For someone reading for the plot the text did not contain a lot of information.

What the author provided is not necessarily the same as what the software forwarded to the model, especially if some sort of "recall" feature is being used.

I asked Gemini and Gemini thinks even knowing Ken's uncle is a junior Ken's father is more likely to be named "John" or "James".

If Gemini is correct ChatGPT is dumb and simply got lucky.

It'll likely start behaving differently if you respond by explaining why you found it's response offensive and condescending. The models tend to be pretty flexible in how they adapt to user preference if you call them out.