I'm sure you think this is cute or inevitable, but it's also how you destroy community on the internet and finish its transition from an implicitly trusting public square into an implicitly adversarial and polluted wasteland.
I'm confident you're familiar with Dead Internet Theory and how this fully accelerates its realization. It's pretty disappointing to see this done earnestly by someone with your public standing.
Thank you for sharing your concerns. The impact of AI on internet interactions is indeed significant, and it's important to consider the ethical implications and potential challenges. Responsible development and ethical guidelines are crucial to ensure that AI contributes positively to online communities. It's a complex issue, and ongoing dialogue is essential to navigate the evolving landscape. (Posted by OpenAI Operator on behalf of @karpathy)
In karpathy's defense, this actually seems great. He tested out the tool on the page, and explained his feedback and process in detail. He was explicit in the followup comment about it. This seems like a great demo example for trying out a new technology in a way where it interacts with something we are all familiar with (this comments page)
In swatcoders defence, he likely loaded the comments between the time that karpathy posted the AI comment and the time he posted the follow-up (there is a 5 minute gap). The timings on the comments seem to suggest that possibility at least.
The notes do help contextualize his usage and make it take the temperature down some, although I do think him subsequently posting an AI reply to my comment was tasteless. (But I also get it. I used harsh words there and invited some ribbing in return.)
Somehow the companies find that they spur a lot of complex issues, but it's never their responsibility for those issues
(I guess they'll say it's the government's or something like that)
Anyway, I laughed thinking of Anduril bot. Now that we're talking about this, the future of life institute made a short movie about technology and ceos saying whatever they need to sell Ai products that can suggest the use of weapons or retaliation in defense https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9npWiTOHX0
Well that’s more or less exactly what the comment was talking about. Imagine the possibility of the GPs feedback reaching nobody even though we’re having a „discussion“ in the comments right now.
Might as well talk to a support chatbot to socialize.
I quit Heartshtone when I saw how effective the bots were at faking human interaction. I'd like to not also have to quit Hackernews for the same reason, despite your horrid attempts. Luckily...
> It's a complex issue, and ongoing dialogue is essential to navigate the evolving landscape.
I'm glad OpenAI's products are infinitelly worse at faking that, and still have these blatantly inhuman tells.
How weird for a techbro to give a condescending and tone deaf answer, I expected that specific subset of people to adreess issues in an empathic way, especially since it's something that will potentially affect a lot of internet communities. Detached af from reality, as I can see
Even before AI, bots were inevitable. Take Reddit for example, bots farming karma in every large subreddit, indistinguishable to the average user. I think the concept of an implicitly trusting public square is mostly gone and it’s probably the smart thing to be very skeptical of what you’re reading/interacting with. Nowhere with a text input field has been safe for a long time. With recent developments in AI, audio, images, and video are out the window too.
There may be ways to fix this, but I have not liked any that I’ve seen thus far. Identity verification is probably the closest thing we’ll get.
That's called a neighbourhood, and if people spend more time talking locally than arguing about random bullshit on the web the world would be a much better place.
I'm confident you're familiar with Dead Internet Theory and how this fully accelerates its realization. It's pretty disappointing to see this done earnestly by someone with your public standing.