> Everything else seems to be bad attempts at relatable writing to invoke emotion (an exercise that we should really stop trying to train emotionless matrix weights to attempt).
replyOne of the things actual science fiction got wrong: to the extent that the thing AI does can be called "understanding", emotion is not unusually difficult for them to understand.
I think this was the biggest shock of the original ChatGPT for me. Just how completely unrobotic its voice was compared to everything we'd ever imagined in sci fi. Even that early version was also way more adept at understanding things like implication and sarcasm than any movie AI.
replyMe too. Almost every Sci-Fi AI proceeds from the premise that we will make something very obviously machine and then have to train it to seem more human. I was completely caught off guard by us taking the approach of distilling all available human output into a statistical model and using it to brute-force something resembling thought and personality through sheer data processing scale.
replyThe unsurprising part once it was clear that approach was viable, was that humans wouldn’t be able to help but anthropomorphize it. I feel like the movie Ex Machina is more relevant than ever.
The "benefiting all humanity" charters were immediately demonstrated to be a ruse. The business model is to hook users into endlessly chatting with your new friend, thus increasing their sales. Yeah, it was surprising and disappointing.
replyI'd really rather they did talk and behave more like classic sci-fi said they would. Far less engaging and fluffy with nonsense.
replyHave you tried asking it to respond to you like Data from star trek, or something?
replyIt may well become a safeguard that all bots must speak in a much less inflected voice to remind us not to particularly trust them.
reply[will need to be fixed later if I'm wrong]
replyOr "will need fixing", right?
replyAppalachian dialect
replyI hear this in the upper midwest occasionally, too
reply