jj4211

Of course that's true, the issue is that when folks are surrounded by "yes men" (or AI equivalents), they lose perspective and suddenly a lack of flattery is enough to be in the "douchebag" category. Some reasonable social friction is important to keep people from going way off the rails.

One problem is AI interactions moving the goalposts of what folks may perceive as 'douchebag'.

An AI providing sycophantic reinforcement at max makes someone being vaguely skeptical of you feel, by comparison, like they are being a 'douchebag'.

Sometimes, it's best if people in your life aren't always acting in a way that seems supportive and positive in the moment. For example if you are having a paranoid delusion, you need a reality check rather than what feels like external validation.

Talking to yourself keeps the perspective hopefully grounded, you know who you are talking to and how full of shit they can be. The magic of AI seems to peel that grounded perspective away for some folks.

The pronouns are vague, but I think they are claiming that an AI user sincerely believes that some manifested thing on an AI platform loves the user. That the LLM+Context Window = An entity capable of love.

I'm more worried about such a person than holding stuff against them.

Treating a chat bot like an acquaintance leads to some poor mental health outcomes.

Yeah, had a car dealer try to say "the price doesn't even matter, only the monthly payment matters, right?"

The problem for those of us who know better: this reasoning works on most of the customers and it's more profitable to do that than cater to more savvy customers.

Given how long that would take, I'd guess that we will see OpenAI backing out of some of their purchasing commitments as a price pressure before then.

Sam Altman basically single handedly committed to buying almost half of the world's RAM capacity, and on other fronts OpenAI has already backing out of some of its more egregiously stupid business decisions. I'm sure the purchasing commitments are only a matter of time to come up on that chopping block.

Yeah, I was in a room with a customer that said point blank "even if it costs us more in opex within a year than buying it as capex, we would rather rent the stuff as opex"

Some accounting bullshit makes them hate having anything that they must count as an "asset" that goes down in value over time. Better to burn the money as "expense" than to have to manage the value burning off over years as "depreciation".

Heh, to some extent I think the hardware vendors have done this to themselves.

They try to balance "good TCO if you just buy it" but simultaneously say "but it sucks to own the equipment you need to pay us exorbitant services fees to make it easier to own".

Nothing unique to IT, certainly car manufacturers love to first sell you on how robust the car is and then try to scare you into thinking it'll turn to dust if you don't buy extended warranties...

Not the beginning, 'Device as a Service' has been the buzzword as of late, but basically has been a thing for decades. I remember twenty years ago scratching my head at why the company I worked at paid more to lease desktops for three years than it would have cost to just buy them outright, or even finance them.

Suffice to say in reality there would be context to indicate who in that partnership would be the unreasonable one. As presented, no way to know if he gamed once in a while and she is annoyed because she is disdainful of the activity, or if he is marathon gaming and never engaging with her.

The image includes a subsequent "what have you done?" which even if you believed everything else, would not have happened.

Yes, but even assuming the origin number was real (it almost certainly isn't), they spammed countless others. If they got counter spammed, they'd have no inking which victim caused it to happen. Unless the person told them, which according to the picture didn't happen. Or they told the Craigslist people his own real number to let the spammer know who sent them, which seems like an even worse idea.

It is a fake story.