satisfice

It is a fact that humans are able to de-humanize each other. This is bad.

But that is not an argument or reason for anthropomorphizing every inanimate object. And if you want to draw the line somewhere, so that only some inanimate objects are people, then we have to argue about where to draw the line. The "but slavery..." argument only deals with actual humans, so it doesn't tell us that LLMs also get to be considered to be people.

Human slaves are embodied, and have a continuous consciousness from birth to death. LLMS have no bodies, cannot meaningfully be killed (to erase one is analogous to it leaving a particular location... it can still be in many other locations at the same time), do not experience pain, do not have emotions, and do not experience time (when you ask one a question it wakes up for a moment and then goes to "sleep" again after replying to you). You can't even meaningfully identify an LLM as an individual, since it was trained on the collective utterances of all humanity, and any little change to it makes it a different entity.

Yes. Also, LLMs are not people. They are not going to be people. And the only people who think they SHOULD be people either don't care about the destruction of humanity (they must want total war?) or can't be bothered to think about the consequences of treating sock puppets as if they had agency.

Not done. I can write a BASIC program that says “PRINT ‘I do not want to die’” This does not mean it is an entity that does not want to die.

But that does not matter anyway. We cannot allow informational entities to attain the same status as people, for exactly the same reason that we don’t allow people to hack voting systems to give themselves 1000000 votes. It would obviously completely destabilize human society.

Yes, so what? Rocks are also not people. I declare it. But you think there is some problem with calling rocks not people?

The fact of declaring something a non-person does not prove it is a non-person. But in the case of LLMs we do know them to be informational structures that are in fact not people.

That’s not a call for slavery. Because only people can be slaves.

We don’t need legislation to declare that a solid iron bar is not your mommy, but somehow not everyone is clear that LLMs are not people, and these immortal amoral simulations cannot be allowed to be confused with people.

Women are real? What does that mean? They are real what? Real womeny? Womenesque?

Bullshitting has potentially severe consequences to the bullshitter. A good reputation is worth a lot.

Of course, Elon Musk makes many millions with his bullshit. I admit that.

This has nothing to do with creativity ending. It sounds like those videos were utterly unremarkable, and the author is telling the story of people with low standards.

It’s as if two guest brought food from two different hamburger chains, enjoyed the food, noticed how the hamburgers were similar, and then announced the end of fine dining.

If counterfeit or stolen cash is indistinguishable from real or honest cash, should you accept it? Should you spend it? No. Why? Because doing so erodes and potentially destroys society.

Whether you agree that a con artist is only a criminal if he gets caught, or you think he’s a criminal the whole time, surely you can see why many people might want to know if they are dealing with a friend and not something simulating a friend.

“AI generated” is already a slur.

If I am asked a question, and I refer it to an LLM, that’s because I have no respect for you.

I can’t read it. Am I AI? Bleep blorp?

"Quality is the absence of problems" is an example of the reification fallacy, because a problem is not a fixed thing. A problem is only a problem because someone decides it is so.

This is why a better definition is "quality is value to some person who matters." This definition instantly places you at the crux of the matter, which is not about a state of the world or of your product in the world, but rather about WHO matters and how they FEEL about your product.

Once again, Dr. Dolittle’s seminal work is ignored.

This is inkblot test. Some will read it and see fundamental irrationality. Others will read it and say “it could have worked out if a couple of things had gone their way.”

The story could be change with just a few sentences in the middle that would turn it into the founding myth of how Globoven took 100% of the market for energy efficient portable emergency ovens for NATO military use.

If you “get out of the way” you also lose your situational awareness and become and outsider to your own work.

It's not a good look to start a comment with any variation of "you're being rude," either. So I guess both of us are prickly?

You misunderstood my blog post in an odd way that's hard for me to account for unless you just didn't read carefully. Hence, my annoyed quip.

I wrote in my policy, referred to in the post, that I never have AI draft anything for me. But I was quite explicit that I may use AI to aid my research in various ways-- just as I use Google search and other tools. I might create a monte carlo simulation to test my understanding of probability before making a bold pronouncement about statistical matter, too.

So, what I mean by adjacent is "next to" but not "on top of" or "inside." That's what most people mean by adjacent. I don't have AI draft any text for me. I type it all myself. I choose the words and sentence forms and rhetorical structure and overall strategy myself. That's how you know it's me and not some AI masquerading as me.

I bet those henchmen in Bond movies thought that the volcano base was merely a government-funded secret research facility.

If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain.

My post was much more than saying “don’t use AI.”

I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically.

My post was about why you are taking a big risk with your reputation/brand if you let AI draft your written communication on your behalf.

I don’t use autocomplete, either. But if I did that would not be hypocritical. Autocomplete does not operate on the level of key ideas.

The “humans are just as bad” argument holds no water. Humans have many infirmities, but you can form relationships of trust with people who earn trust and deserve it. You can hold people accountable, personally and publicly. With the exception of rare criminals and the severely mentally ill, you understand people and you can work with them.

Anyway, if you hire someone to pretend to be you, that’s fraud. That’s being a scammer. Don’t do that. For the same reason, don’t let AI write in your name.

Or if you do, remember that I warned you how your reputation would collapse and people would stop taking your work seriously.

It’s not that you are a liar, it’s that I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you are. Not just me, but also many other people will automatically discount whatever you say when they suspect they are talking to something not-you that bears your name.

Maybe it’s not your goal to be seriously? But if it is…

One hardly needs an excuse to talk about class warfare and the evils of capitalism, since their deleterious effects are all around you, if you can pause your xBox game or Netflix special for a few minutes and look at how the world works.

I run a business and have occasionally benefited from the fact that people want work so badly that I can get their skilled labor at an absurdly low price.

AI is having a devastating effect on the psychology of the industry, regardless of the fact that it largely sucks. The author of this piece makes an excellent point.

Good work takes skill. The tech industry long ago realized that good work is not required to stay in business. The industry is overflowing with mediocre workers who feel little pressure to master their craft.

It’s strange to find the word “malicious” used to describe a defensive move against a bullying entity. If a kid punches a bullies who is taking his lunch money, that’s heroic.

AI agents and their peddlers and operators are scofflaws. I’m glad someone is putting down a spike strip for them.

I am remembering the same Internet. I got into lots of flame wars on comp.software-eng and before that on Compuserve and various FIDO boards.

It was never a very placid or friendly place. There was more tolerance for vigorous debate than there is now. The debate didn’t change many minds, I suppose.

Maybe it’s condescending, but it’s valid. I have made sacrifices throughout my career to maintain maximum integrity, and the least I can do is be proud of it, since I don’t have riches or possessions to be proud of.

Yeah I rage quit my job 27 years ago and have been a struggling honest consultant ever since. Clients who want actual solutions to their problems come to me. Does that sound arrogant? Well I also have no savings and don’t own a house.

I don’t regret most of my choices, but I am aware that if somebody paid me enough money I would walk away from my principles. It would have to be a LOT of money.

I’m developing a class for non-technical people on the responsible use of AI.

Continuing development of online training for software testers, with a heavy emphasis on AI, since that’s where the demand is.

During a livestreamed demo yesterday, I ran into a ridiculous bug in Copilot for Excel. After all these years Microsoft still can’t manage the basics of reliability and still deny that they need good testers.

Somebody at a fishing line company won salesman of the month.

I think you are right. ALSO, this is not happening and will not even start happening because no mechanism exists to make the kinds of transformations necessary for it to happen.

I think I know how patricians felt as the Roman Empire was falling and all the systems of long distance trade collapsed. You can see it happening but you can’t change anything.

A video series about a critical thinking approach to AI