[–] 12 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

LLMs are trained on human writing, so they'll always be fundamentally anthropomorphic. you could fine-tune them to sound more clinical, but it's likely to make them worse at reasoning and planning.

for example, I notice GPT5 uses "I" a lot, especially saying things like "I need to make a choice" or "my suspicion is." I think that's actually a side effect of the RL training they've done to make it more agentic. having some concept of self is necessary when navigating an environment.

philosophical zombies are no longer a thought experiment.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    happened with Replika a few years ago. made a number of people suicidal when they "neutered" their AI partners overnight with a model update (ironically, because of pressure because of how unhealthy it is.)

    idk, I'm of two minds. it's sad and unhealthy to have a virtual best friend, but older people are often very lonely and a surrogate is better than nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    it's wild to think that we embed miniature copies of Greek and Latin into English, for doing science and medicine. not just words, I mean a functional grammar fully stocked with roots and morphemes. we just make words like "holographic," "isotope" and "synesthesia" (Greek), "accelerometer", "prefabricated" and "refrigerator" (Latin), or hybrids ("television", "microscope.")

    English is such a wonderful mutt of a language.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Trump's lawyers are petitioning the Court to restrict the Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) imposed by the lower courts to the named plaintiffs only, which they frame as a "modest" request. This is absurd. The subject of the TRO is a policy change, and it's the policy itself that's likely illegal. TROs are supposed to preserve the status quo while litigation proceeds. Grandfathering a handful of litigants in while letting the change go through in no way preserves the status quo. Striking down the power of lower courts to issue so-called "universal injunctions" would likely be an Equal Protection violation, or it would at least flood the lower courts with tens of thousands of plaintiffs individually filing cases to get the same relief.

    How do you think the Court will rule on this? I'm inclined to think (hope?) we'll have the same 5-4 majority uphold this TRO as we had in USAID v. AVAC last week.

     

    From a few days back, but I'm surprised this didn't hit harder on the news. Perkins Coie was the law firm contracted to do oppo research on Trump during his 2016 campaign, which sourced the infamous Steele Dossier from FusionGPS. The EO strips the firm of all its contracts, directs EEOC to investigate their (past!) DEI initiatives and hiring, forces all contractors to inform the government if they do any business with Perkins Coie (even as part of other contracts), blacklists every employee from ever being hired by the government, strips them of their security clearances, prohibits Federal employees from interacting with anyone from Perkins on official business, and even bans employees from setting foot in any Federal building! It also threatens other large law firms.

    Trump's administration has done plenty of heinous things so far, but this blatant exacting of revenge against entities external to the executive branch feels like a new low.

    view more: next ›