sfRattan

> I think most people in the tech sector and especially driving the AI hype have absolutely no clue how difficult it is to implement change in complex organisations.

Simple organizations too, and sometimes especially so. The amount of unrealized productivity many small business stand to gain just by adopting simple automations that computers have been able to perform for decades may be as large as (or larger than) the productivity gains ML model and agent adoption enables. And that adoption may just be enabling someone who never wanted to learn Excel macros or regular expressions to command an agent to go do those things which have been possible yet unrealized in a particular small business for decades.

The problem has largely been (and remains) humans set in their ways, of the sort who stopped reading books or seeking any new knowledge whatsoever the moment their mandated or socially expected schooling was complete. Incurious midwits are definitionally the bulk of any workforce, and getting them to change any process is like pulling teeth whether they're working in a small business or a megacorporation. Change often doesn't come until the midwit on some particular throne retires, quits, or is laid off.

Not OP, but I like OnlyOffice for its keytips support (tap alt and then the whole ribbon gives you live hints for navigating and executing UI functions/buttons with the keyboard). Far ahead of LibreOffice, at least at the moment.

Getting better at communicating is unfortunately really hard. And it must pair with the helper aspect: you've got to also provide value.

"Nomad," the guy from the article, was already administering his parents' home LAN.

How do you get there? "Mom and Dad, we're going to set up your home network so that it's blended with my home network. To all the machines in your house and mine, it'll look like they're on the same network together. That'll make it easier for me to help you with any tech problems you're having, on your computer or on any smart device. The connection between our houses will be encrypted and secure" You're installing a router/firewall for them and adding to your WireGuard overlay network, but you're not using any of those words to tell them what's going on.

What to do next? "How was watching TV last night from {$TIMESTAMP_A} to {$TIMESTAMP_B}? Yeah, my network sentinel detected that your TV was sending your viewing habits out to somewhere on the Internet and warned me and blocked it. I can't tell what you were watching, but {$TV_BRAND} sure can." You're monitoring their LAN via the router/firewall you've set up, but you are again not using technical language.

Wherever spying is invisible and frictionless, make it loud and incessant. And continue to provide value to the family on the shared overlay network. Photo and home video backups, media server (it's like Netflix!), mutual offsite buddy backups, password management, a local Minecraft server for the kids and the cousins.

Cultivate a family network garden that is good enough to consider leaving the leviathans behind and build walls around it that are high enough to commit to leaving the leviathans behind for what is now a garden inside a family network castle.

Honeywell Home T6 Pro Z-Wave.

It's smart and supports only Z-Wave, not WiFi. So something like a machine running Home Assistant must sit between it and the Internet. And then its up to you to decide how you want to do remote access, but WireGuard overlay networks (e.g. Netbird, Tailscale) basically solve that problem at home-user scale.

> What hope do normies have?

None, without people like us in their families who are able and willing to help.

We as computer people need to internalize and accept the idea that helping our immediate and even extended family with technology is now part of defending human freedom. And we need to form ourselves into the best helpers we can be by learning how to teach and communicate well.

> The idea of "contradictory data" is a projection that you're imposing.

No. Using the topic in this subthread: the methods described as "whole language reading instruction" contradict the methods of learning to read supported by science. That is an observation. If you think it is a projection or a hallucination, then maybe there is nothing left to say because we are talking past each other and you are being extremely pedantic in a way that is unproductive to communicating a problem that, yes, exists in the minds of humans. Humans who use LLMs without understanding LLMs, and walk away with information that is incorrect, useless, or worse-than-useless in the real world.

If you genuinely think computer-literate people are projecting the notions of contradiction and/or sycophancy into the workings of an LLM, I'm not sure how to persuade you otherwise. But I suspect most people on this forum using phrases like "sycophancy" understand what an LLM is (and why it is not technically a literal sycophant) and simultaneously understand that the phrase "sycophancy" provides a useful cautionary, metaphoric image for average people who are using LLMs absent deeper understanding of the technology.

I think what those observations missed is that the best readers quickly build up a large baseline vocabulary of known words, whether by phonics or something else, and therefore appear to be guessing often or, when they're guessing, have a much better understanding of the surrounding prose than a median learner who has only been taught to guess at every word.

And yes, something similar is happening with common core math. Curricula are trying to teach the tricks, shortcuts, and mental re-arranging of numbers that are only possible to comprehend once the basics are memorized and internalized. It was miserable memorizing times tables, but I remember being able to start to see the ways you could combine and recombine numbers after I had successfully memorized them. Trying to teach those things without any memorization is putting the cart before the horse.

> There’s no contradiction from the point of view of the model and its responses, and no need to invoke sycophancy or flattery as a reason for the behavior.

Sycophancy and flattery are words that relate to how humans experience LLMs. It's appropriate to use words that could anthropomorphize as descriptors for a problem when that problem exists in the space of human experience. It doesn't matter that an LLM is merely a predictive model. It matters that humans who use the model perceive it as a conversation partner and walk away feeling 'flattered' by the model's predictive responses to the humans' input, which the model predicts without regard for factual accuracy, which happens in turn because (as you point out) "there’s no contradiction from the point of view of the model."

We could call the problem "LLM predictive output which tends to have the effect of flattering the user's opinionated assumptions without regard for factual accuracy" if you prefer that much of a mouthful, but "sycophancy" describes the problem well and is one word instead of twenty.

> One prompt will elicit a response based on one set of weights that are most closely related to the prompt. A different prompt will elicit a response from a different set of weights, for the same reason.

Yes or, in other words: there's sufficient contradictory data which were used to train the model's weights that it will predict (a series of tokens which when read in order in English convey) accurate information for some prompts and (a series of tokens which when read in order in English convey) inaccurate information for others. That the contradiction is beyond the LLM's scope is part of the problem. The two identical parentheticals above are (or ought to be) as unneeded as pointing out that a statistical model cannot technically be sycophantic.

> That seems like an unfair prompt. You literally told it to do a specific task and it did as instructed. For sycophancy...

You redefine syncophancy too narrowly. Many (if not an outright majority of) everyday LLM users have neither the educational foundation nor skill to ask good, well-formed questions like the one you propose. We should consider syncophany in the scope of an average person's non-optimal use of LLMs. CrazyStat's prompt is something your average Joe will absolutely feed an LLM, and Joe will walk away with something very much like those plausible falsehoods. We have to think of and work against LLM syncophancy in the scope of how the hypothetical average person will use an LLM.

> ...imagine if your dashboard controls and icons, had occasional tweaks in size and shape that made them slightly harder/easier to use, but over time ended up with controls you found more intuitive and easier to use.

When even a single button disappears from where I expect to find it in an application (and reappears somewhere else), that has never resulted in the application feeling more intuitive or easy to use. It has only ever been frustrating in the most literal sense of that word, and only every caused me to start looking into other programs.

A more subtle undermining of the user's trust that their tools will be where they left them on the screen the next time they open the application is arguably more insidious, not less. Both because it is more maddening to the end-user than a full redesign and because the damage of lost trust and user ire is harder to measure than the A/B engagement data until things progress too far for any easy, non-painful remediation.

A/B testing can be helpful as a part of an actual user study on users who are aware of what is happening. But unleashed on an unsuspecting user population out in the real world with real things to do on real deadlines, A/B testing inevitably becomes a harmful dark pattern.

> A/B testing users without their knowledge and enthusiastic consent is unethical.

Yep, and A/B testing as experienced by uninformed, unaware end-users is a dark pattern.

It undermines the perception of (and trust in) continuity which is necessary to make effective use of a tool. The best way I can describe it to the skeptical is: imagine the dials on your car's dashboard rearrange themselves occasionally overnight, and on some commutes to work you suddenly can't work the radio or the AC while moving at ≥35mph. Of course, since the widespread use of touchscreens, that example became very literal.

So the car manufacturer has figured out the "optimal" arrangement of dials and buttons on their dashboard for their preferred levels of user engagement. Great. How many of those users now associate their car's brand with inconsistency? "I can't trust the damn buttons to be in the same place the next time I drive."

Humble Bundle frequently has nice bundles of genre fiction or comics by specific authors. I've picked up large sets of Ebooks from them over the last few years by numerous authors: Ursula K. Le Guin, Robert Jordan, comics by Moebius, and recently Timothy Zahn and various scifi/fantasy authors with careers spanning decades.

It's a great resource!