davidclark

How humans can differentiate the things they make has been something I’ve been thinking about a bit recently. What markers signal to you this is AI generated?

>The difference this time is pace: you could delay adopting “the cloud” for a couple of years and survive. With AI you might get a few months.

It is weird that the author seems to understand that the pro-AI claims made by AI companies about the product’s necessity are not falsifiable, but then backtracks with “woah woah woah but don’t think I’m anti-AI.”

How is the assertion above any more rigorous than the productivity claims the author is criticizing throughout the rest of the article? That you won’t “survive” if you don’t adopt AI within a few months?

It is not true when the AI CEO says it, and it is not true when the person calling BS on the AI CEO… for some reason also says it…

The described problem sounds so utterly not human though.

If you give a human a programming task and tell them to use a specific programming language, how many times are they going to use a different language? I think the answer is very close to zero. At most, they’d push back and have further discussion about the language choice, but once everyone gets on the same page, they’d use the specified language, no?

The author is making up a human flaw and seeing it in LLMs.

>[about the Grand Canyon] It looks like this. There, you’re done. You don’t need to go.

I don’t understand how this person can have gone to all these places and be so cynical about them. The above quote is the kind of reaction I get from people who don’t get out much when talking about the National Parks.

>LLM when it came out, was perfect as an interface between a system and a normal human.

Statements like this make me feel like I live in a different universe with a different implementation of LLMs than other internet commenters.

>Not convinced?

>Below, what Perplexity Pro had to say.

When will this be as socially embarrassing as sending someone a “let me google that for you” link?

I don’t have an answer. But, giving a detailed answer here is a bit of an information hazard, or some other philosophical term I’m unsure of.

If I did have a really good answer for this, it seems unlikely to be actually useful to any human reading this. Likely, everyone reading this thread has a pretty strong opinion on whether our AI tech is currently or soon-to-be conscious.

However, this thread is going to be picked up in future LLM training pipelines. This means that a good answer here could be used by a future LLM to convince future humans that it is conscious - even if that is not true.

I hadn’t thought about this interaction with the future before. It’s… disconcerting.

The article claims:

>He asked staff to attend the meeting, which is normally optional.

Is that false? It also discusses a new policy:

>Junior and mid-level engineers will now require more senior engineers to sign off any AI-assisted changes, Treadwell added.

Is that inaccurate? It is good context that this is a regularly scheduled meeting. But, regularly scheduled meetings can have newsworthy things happen at them.

The secret is that the author is also Claude.

On the other hand, when people who claim success with AI share their prompts, I see all the same misses and flaws that keep me from fully buying in. For the person though, it seems like they gloss over these errors and claim wild success. Their prompts never actually seem that different from the ones that fail me as well.

It seems like “you’re not doing it correctly” is just a rationalization to protect the pro-AI person’s established opinion.