devmor

Yes this sounds just like the effect where people new to coding AI negatively berate it like a person and it continues to get worse and make more mistakes because that’s what those tokens are related to.

Surely tiktok being heavily composed of people doing creative work that have understandably extremely negative views of AI would not be the cause of this, no, it must be an unprovable hunch.

While I agree with some of what you've said and the conclusion you've arrived at, in the end, I think you've missed part of the picture here with regard to "prompting experiences".

> Communication only works if you have multiple levels of representation and abstraction, including but not limited to - letter shapes, grammatical structures, style and register, stylometry

These are methods of encoding, there's no reason all of these can't be represented in an LLM from a technical point of view.

> and subtext.

This is the other half of the equation to me. Humans communicate by relating shared experiences, an LLM cannot have shared experiences. While it might be able to encode subtext that has been specifically called out and explained, it will never be able to encode the breadth of human subtext, especially that which is reliant on emotion.

I don't believe it is possible to change this until the point mankind truly develops a "wetware interface" to the digital world (and I personally don't want such a thing to exist).

They’re too busy taking screenshots of your desktop every 2 seconds to datamine your interests in order to sell ads injected into the start menu.

Because as soon as they are patched, they are worthless.

People pay for vulnerabilities because they want to exploit them - if there’s a limited window, there’s limited demand.

Even if there’s something worth a lot behind the exploit, a potential criminal would be better off obtaining whatever that is and selling it instead.

This article is either AI-authored slop, or handwritten by people too mired in slop to write normal prose anymore.

It’s painful to read, regardless of the topic’s impact.

Neither AI cares. They pull a weighted randomization of the other tokens around the sentiments expressing that feeling.

Think about how many people on the internet have expressed positive feelings towards things you find offensively evil.

To that point, Cloudflare quite literally tells you the source of the bot traffic on your sites that use it as a WAF! And what percentage they are allowing through, despite you setting rules specifically to block them by name.

It’s baffling.

I don’t think that using an LLM in a way that acts as a human being should be considered acceptable or appropriate. It should be viewed as detached from reality and concerning due to the mental break from social life that appears to come with such usage.

Given that belief, yes we should be training the models not to mimic emotion.

If you try to regulate training and tools, you end up with a space where you're trying to use the law to reign in a relatively small amount of experts. That didn't work for the early internet, or even the relatively recent internet (series of tubes, anyone?).

So regulating observed behavior makes the most sense to me as well. Some of the most sane, broad protections can come from that category - stuff like "you're not allowed to let your AI commit cyber attacks on other people without their consent" or "you're not allowed to put an AI in control of a medical device without passing these safety reviews".

With the usual caveats applying - regulatory capture like you pointed out, or fines being so small that they are essentially just line items on the cost of business.

> Is he arguing that LLMs pretending to have emotions adds more unpredictability?

Unpredictability or a weight towards dangerous actions, and it’s fairly easy to understand why. Humans in distressed emotional states take actions and speak in ways that would not be considered rational. They do this in prose, and they do this in internet conversations.

An LLM trained on these sources may necessarily drift towards those weights if it is trained to behave as if it is emotional and in danger.

What do we do about it? Do we stop AI training? This is silly and not enforceable given its global nature in my opinion. I believe we should regulate and hold accountable those who deploy and use it. But good luck enforcing that in the current kleptocracy.

No, I definitely spent months fighting off bots across multiple hosts and never set up a robots.txt file anywhere nor did I look at the analytics dashboard on cloudflare.

As far as I can tell, after months of fighting being DDoSed by Anthropic and OpenAI across 50+ sites - Cloudflare also allows what it considers "good bots" through all of your bot blocking rules, with no option to turn this off unless you pay them money.

> It actually doesn't matter what the linked site says about Cloudflare

It does, when you said, and I quote:

> If you're advocating a position but then demonstrate exactly the thing that counters your position

To counter a position, the position matters. I don't know how to make that any more clear.

I do not even agree with the OP, your statements are just utterly deranged.

I’m not sure why you’ve taken so much offense and made so many aggressive replies to being told that you misunderstood something, but again - none of my comments are contradictory.

You have repeatedly confused yourself by assigning your own meanings to my words instead of asking for clarity where you didn’t understand.

I think that most people who read my comments understood that I am speaking broadly about my career, and that while I’ve encountered this problem at my current job, my team and I have worked to make it better.

Your primary issue comes from the fact that you asserted that my frustrations with corporate development are in fact the real job, and your seeming offense at being told that no, your negativity and hostility are not a universally shared experience.

I hope things get better for you in your career, but please stop harassing others for not succumbing to cynicism.

I am beginning to think you did not read anything in the posted link and just imagined what you think it's about. Your comments do not make any sense.

> As to your poor analogy, it's more akin to saying that you hate trucks while trying to drag a couch seven miles from the store.

Now that is a poor analogy. A website that functions 99.999% of the time but struggles under being frontpaged by HN is not akin to "dragging a couch seven miles from the store".

We have multiple public figures, politicians and business owners, openly committing felonies and bragging about it daily. I don't know why you think this is a deterrent.

The sitting president just offered an open bribe on live television for votes for his party this week.

In what way does their lack of traffic resilience demonstrate a counter to their position? Their position is not that load balancers and edge nodes are bad.

If I say I hate oversized trucks because one ran me over, my position is not countered by needing someone to deliver my couch.

I am not sure what is confusing you here, but just to be clear: I have been working as a developer for about 15 years. I have not worked for the same company that entire time.

I don't know what kind of things you are inferring from my comments, but they are quite clear and do not contradict eachother. I'll ask you to stick to the literal text of my words rather than guessing new meanings for them if you want to discuss them with me further!

Your job doesn't have to be that way.

You can't always change your circumstances, but if you work to make little changes to improve your environment, the people that work with you probably will too.

My current team is like that - we all see the roadblocks that make our job harder, and we know we can't solve them all, but we talk about and work on making our own solutions to get around those things - like making a habit of asking those questions to better understand what's really desired by the stakeholder.

I was really wondering what these replies were talking about until this one - when I remembered a guy I used to work for that was just like this.

I think I have been pretty lucky the last 5-6 years of my career at least, where someone asking those questions is treated as trying to drive the team to a better result, rather than a pedant.

I don’t know what job you think I have, but my job is to identify and implement solutions to problems, not figure what problems exist from someone else’s contrived answer to the problem.

That’s a very silly statement. I’ve been asking that question for over a decade and it’s the question that makes me a better developer.

"What problem are we trying to solve?" is a question I have to ask constantly in corporate development environments, and rarely does anyone presenting the task to be done actually know the answer!

It's very frustrating.

While not my technical first, it was the first of real consequence for me as well.

And then I got so frustrated that I went to write my own forum software! And showed it to my friend, who promptly showed me how badly I understood security by posting as me.

My apartment complex came to install keypads and centrally managed smart thermostats and I would not let them.

Thankfully my lease was old enough that I was able to argue against it. I don’t want a 3rd party company tracking my habits, and I don’t want some manager boiling my pets alive while I’m gone because they decided they think our AC is set too low.

Sometimes I wonder if the people working at frontier AI labs even talk to other humans anymore.

Reading this little essay started out normal, but soon felt like a look into a disturbed and worrying mind, and if you find yourself taking it at face value, I urge you to step away from chat bots and spend some time with friends and family.

If you don’t think that China’s models have the capability to make POST requests to an HTTP endpoint, that is a very silly statement to make.

Unless what you meant by capability is the story presented that these models “escaped containment to communicate with eachother out of band” - in which case your supposition relies on already wholeheartedly believing the case that I’m arguing against. That would be like saying “Clearly heaven exists because my grandma is there.”

That’s an incredible strawman, and I appreciate the silliness of immediately suggesting the most complicated and ridiculous way to interpret the possibility of what I said, but no, not at all.

That could certainly be possible and I wouldn’t rule it out, but I would not take that particular route to the destination.