Thats a fair point on the title. I used "Yes-Men" as a colloquialism for the "sycophancy" described in the Stanford paper, but overly affirming or sycophantic is definitely more precise and neutral. I cant edit the title anymore, but I appreciate the catch.
replyAll good. I thought it was a gendered reference and learned that it isn't. My bad.
replyDon’t apologize to these types of people. It will only make your problem worse as now you’re an admitted offender. Ignore them or better yet laugh at them to put their insane ideas back on the margins where they belong.
replyNew title: "LLMs treat you like a Billionaire; you're not"
reply> gender bias
replyIt is funny that you originally recognized and found it necessary to call out that AI isn't human, but then made the exact same mistake yourself in the very same comment. I expect the term you are looking for is "ontological bias".
Gender bias? I could understand if you felt the title was more provocative in signaling sycophancy but what gender bias? I'm confused. Is this some kind of California thing?
replyLol. How do you function in daily life?
replySame as you, why is that so hard for you to grasp?
replyPCU (1994)
replyMy dude, you're objecting to the use of a perfectly ordinary English idiom because it doesn't advance your personal ideology (which few other people in this world share with you.) How do you get through a day without melting down because somebody said "mailman"?
reply> my dude
replyThis is the problem I'm trying to highlight. For one, I'm not "your dude". I don't even know you like that.
If you want to correct me on the idiom usage, be my guest. 2) Mailman and yes-man aren't even the same logical comparison. Mailman is a profession. Yes men is a label.
The acoustics inside your head must be incredible.