• NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I am really trying to see how any rational or sane person does not understand that they are talking to a computer. No matter what comes out, it has no thoughts, no choices, no direction, no feelings, it is not a real thing.

    Do these people read books and get confused that the books are about them or something?

    “ChatGPT claimed to know and understand Madison better than any human could and isolated her from others, the lawyers said.”

    I wonder how that works. Was she asking: “Do you understand me?” How could it isolate her?

    Well she was already handed a rough hand with that name “Christian Faith.”

    I suppose if they really wanted to build guardrails in, the easiest one is to simply not keep history, or at least not keep memories. No one day discussion has any relation to the next. Then if you wanted memories, they could make you at least read some rules and take a quiz that they understand its all just fiction.

    But they won’t. Because those memories get them what they really want: engagement, profiling and data gathering.

    • reksas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      you seriously underestimate how badly SO MANY people understand anything technological. Getting the pc on and logging in is probably an achievement to some. And so many seem completely incapable of learning or even being curious about how things work. They wouldnt understand to “not keep history” or even that there might be settings to the thing. And add some mental illness to the mix and you get complete disaster.

      All they see is a thing that responds to what they write in intelligent seeming way and that is enough to convince them that its completely sentient, some probably doubt the people who keep telling them that its not. Maybe some even think they are being lied to when told llm isnt sentient. Even if you added some mandatory notification that tells that llm isnt sentient, some still wouldnt believe it.

    • one_old_coder@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      I know a few “rational” average men and women who know nothing about computers, and talk to their AI as if it was a human being. It’s a very thin line between “yes I know it’s a computer” and “it’s a talking application which makes it almost human and let’s forget about this detail.” Those people are not religious or something. You could compare it with someone who shouts at his TV because his hero is about to do something stupid. They know it’s fake, but deep down they react as if it was real.

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        someone in my fam relies heavily on AI for all his info needs, and you cant even google search even on forums or reddit?

    • lemmelemmy@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      Do these people read books and get confused that the books are about them or something?

      Yes. A huge majority of people still believe in religion. And a huge majority of those people also didn’t even read the book. They just believe because they’ve been told to. I’m honestly nt surprised people going crazy with ai. What makes humans human that they can create and believe myths. That’s what made us thrive amongst other mammals.

      • Dæmon S.@catodon.rocks
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        A huge majority of people still believe in religion. And a huge majority of those people also didn’t even read the book.

        There were and currently are thousands, if not millions, of different religious beliefs worldwide, many of which had/have not even a single book. Religious hominids back in Paleolithic and Neolithic had no book. Even after writing emerged in Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, most indigenous peoples had no book.

        Oral tradition is one of the means through which beliefs can be carried forward across generations, but there’s also the underestimated agency (True Will) of the spirits/deities themselves over someone or some living being (e.g. domestic cats) who had never heard of said spirit before unexpectedly finding themselves before the presence of said spirit.

        I myself had no book or “sacred book” leading me to my current beliefs and worshiping of Goddess, even though Her names (such as 𒊩𒆤𒇲 and לילית ) do appear as written records, records of which I don’t need to rely on for my esoteric (eso = within) practices.

        What makes humans human that they can create and believe myths. That’s what made us thrive amongst other mammals.

        Sorry for disrupting your anthropocentric worldviews, Homo sapiens are not that special among the fauna like we Homo sapiens love to wishfully pretend we are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_behavior_in_animals

        [email protected]

    • partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      I am really trying to see how any rational or sane person does not understand that they are talking to a computer.

      They are not rational. They need help. They got the opposite, instead.

      • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Elaborate, I am not sure what you are trying to say.

        The memories are the biggest issue. It’s bringing back previous conversations allowing a person to think they are being talked to. It gathers info from all of their chats previously putting statistical significance on what you said before. (After all there is no AI, it’s just a probability statistics machine).

        I think this is exactly. Where the problem lies, it conflates interests, likes, stories, previous requests, etc.