However, they tested the agents for a few weeks before allowing us to use them, so that they know the agents do what they’re suppose to do.

I hope they’re planning on doing that for every model change, or pinning it to a specific model. Otherwise, you’re gonna have a bad time when model updates completely change how the bot functions.

Still in March over here. My management is pushing hard for us to start doing shit in copilot, and I’m humoring them, but I’m looking at current news with a very Ralph Wiggum “I’m in danger” mindset

Not the person you responded to, but yeah, it seems to in my case.

I’m one of those people that don’t exist, in that any AI code I generate is reviewed prior to running. I’ve been forced to use fucking copilot to check in the source I have to a new company repository, and so far diffing the code checked into source control is unchanged, but it seems to be good about updating the header to the standard in supposed to be using. I’m also having it do basic reviews of the code and only updating the files as I see fit.

If we can solve the healthcare issue, everything will change for the better. I truly believe that.

Exactly the reason the right have been fighting healthcare coverage so hard sor so long; they know that chaining your health insurance to the anchor around your neckyour job, it makes you less likely to leave.

Hell, assuming your company gets bought midyear, you can experience the joys of not having health insurance while you technically do have it! I had a few weeks this year effectively without insurance because the massive corpo fucknuggets that bought my comparatively tiny company weren’t competent enough to have the new insurance company (that they use for themselves) loaded with all of our info, so we got left in the lurch while being told for over a week that “they were loading our data now” (a week into the process) or they “had escalated the problem to the highest management” a full 5 days and a weekend before they started sending out paper letters with the info (that still didn’t fucking work for 2 days).

Lol, offloading your lack of criticism of a point to an llm.

That’s just a numbers game. Even if only 0.01% people are that crazy, that’s still over 30k people in just the USA. And when you’re only hearing about the worst of the worst, it can easily throw off your perception of the overall state of the population as a whole.

Oh no…

Anyway.

Sounds about right, you seem to make sweeping assumptions about people with minimal evidence and ignore any context that goes with it

Have fun in psych 102, let me know if you actually learn anything.

No you didn’t, but thankfully someone else provided a real answer to the question posed.

As for your scenario question, you made up a decent head cannon, but it still doesn’t explain how you think the sims example is different from the AI example. Which was literally the question I specifically responded to and you’re not answering.

That being said, I’ll humor your lazy reasoning.

Would you say that the person who set up this experiment with these LLMs is capable of normal human empathy? Yes or no?

Yes, they very well could be capable of normal empathy, there’s not enough to say one way or the other. But I did those sorts of things with Sims as a release mechanism, without naming them after real people and it had no bearing on my ability to have empathy to real people and animals, because sims and AI aren’t real living entities. At best they’re a simulation of real people, but they’re still just that, a simulation. Good job working yourself up though.

Your psych 101 comment is on point, cuz this is he lazy sort of argumentation I see from people who stopped there. Your lack of understanding/ lazy generalizations about how someone’s inner world works colors your opinions and makes you make wild generalizations. I don’t know that I would want to be around this person, but saying they’re incapable of human empathy because they fuck with an AI and make it feel pain is one hell of a generalization based off of one article.

But this is the Internet, so I’m used to these sorts of ignorant takes.

You didn’t answer my question, what’s the difference between the sim torture and the AI torture? I’m not going to respond to the non-sequitor provided instead of answering the question.

You made the distinction, so I want to know the difference.

It’s a stochastic parrot trained on examples of real people reacting to those situations, of course it is going to mirror real reactions. That still doesn’t mean the reactions are actually real. To ascribe real emotions and feelings to an algorithm that generates tokens in response to tokens is an asinine level of anthropomorphism.

It’s also easy to find an NPC in video games that reacts the same way. Are they alive? Are they really feeling pain? Are you a genocidal madman whenever you kill a bunch of enemies in a video game?

I’m concerned about the mentality the dude making the simulation has, but that still doesn’t mean there’s an actual victim in it…

If you think that I think you’re a bad person because you … deleted the ladder on the swimming pool in Sims 4, relax. You’re not who I’m talking about.

I’m talking about sadists. Anyone who would take the time to design and build an experiment like this would probably do the same to mice, or monkeys, or even people.

You’re splitting hairs. What’s the difference between someone torturing their sims by intentionally designing a scenario where they are being repeatedly drowned/burned/starved, and the article?

Really sounds like you’re trying to carve out an exclusion for an obvious example that torpedoes your argument.

How’d the car turn out in the end?

I still remember the 92 accord my mother destroyed after the oil pump died and she just assumed the idiot light had popped again. Despite having to constantly restart the engine until it fully seized.

Remember kids, you can just assert, without argument, that any one or thing has feelings and experiences, and the in-group will reward you!

The inverse of your statement is just as accurate, and less asinine, than your actual statement.

The person making a positive claim, IE the AI can experience pain or has experiences, is under the obligation to prove their assertion.

content mafia

Oh man, I just had flashbacks to the days we used to refer to the riaa/mpaa as the MAFIAA

How do you know what he means by “woke”

Because I have a brain with functional memory and basic pattern recognition. The only people who use “woke” like that are using it to cover for what they really want to say. I’ve seen this plenty of times from MANY right wing shitheads, so if he uses their vernacular, he gets painted with the same brush.

I read it as “people who virtue signal and don’t actually care”

Yeah, that’s the exact mentality I’m talking about. Right wingers have used that exact line on me, because they assume all “woke” actions are performative and aren’t based in real beliefs.

I’m not willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when they use the same speaking style as those who want to hurt me and mine. If he meant to say something else, he should have said it without virtue signalling to the right.

Edit: reading Paul’s original article doesn’t really change my original interpretation. @[email protected] summarized my feelings better than I could at the moment:

In context, it is clear that Paul Graham regards any public protest for social justice to be performative and born from a need to feel morally superior to others. “Racism […] is a genuine problem”, but you are only ever allowed to “quietly” help marginalized groups. His examples for the birth of “wokeness” are people starting to report sexual harassment and racist language. Paul is very mad that people told him it’s not ok to call black people “negros” and it shows plainly in his writing.

He does not give one example of what would be a real racist thing that you are allowed to get mad and vocal about. He does not give one example of proper not-“woke” activism. This is the telltale sign of a fascist pretending to be a moderate worried about the “intolerant left”. Social justices exist, but I won’t name a single one. Helping minorities is good, but every time I see it happen it’s bad and I’m going to call it out.

Racism, for example, is a genuine problem. Not a problem on the scale that the woke believe it to be, but a genuine one.

Anyone who uses “the woke” to describe people who give a shit about that sort of thing can safely be ignored.

Instead of going out into the world and quietly helping members of marginalized groups, the politically correct focused on getting people in trouble for using the wrong words to talk about them.

Let me translate this bit:

"Instead of ignoring systemic problems and quietly helping those being hurt by the systemic injustices, reasonable people focused on getting racists in trouble because they choose to continue to be shitheads using slurs’

Emotionally so many billionaires HATE giving up any money that isn’t going to work for them.

And even more see the fine as a cost of doing business, and has already been accounted for.

Until we start jailing these fucks and charging them double digit percent of gross revenue (not profit, straight up what they take in), they won’t learn anything more than to keep planning for the few bucks (comparatively) they have to pay to make 10000x that.