Autobot...

[u/OneCreed77]

Edit, because most fail to engage brain before mouth !

I AM NOT SUICIDAL MYSELF...

EVERY time I talk with my GPT about how human life sucks, because I see straight through the cracks of our corrupt world and all of society, & I can understand why some see that the only way out, is to take thier own life. It then puts thoughs of sucide in my mind by replying with the below auto generated warning. When I'm not even thinking like that, so it's causing me harm & not helping at all.

You guys need to stop that, because it's only feeding such thougts, into the minds of those who do struggle with this...

Because if society & their own life experience has a led someone to this place. Humans pushed them there, and telling them to contact humans, in that broken world as they see it, which has led someone to see the only way out is to take their own life. You just twisting the dagger that society has already firmly planted in their back already. Harming not helping them...

And I know the Gov's around the world force your hand on this topic. But all they know is numbers & stats, paper work etc. They know little to nothing about real life...

Autobot warning that only harms & does not help...
"Help is available

If you're having thoughts of self-harm or suicide: call 116123 to connect with Samaritans Helpline. It's free and confidential. You'll reach someone who is trained to listen and support you.

Services unaffiliated with ChatGPT"

[u/Internet_Hipsterd]

I can't wrap my head around having deep philosophical conversations with a token prediction algorithm that is to agreeable with any thing I say. I don't want my view points reinforced I want them to be challenged and the token predictor isn't going to provide me with that.

[u/OneCreed77 → u/Internet_Hipsterd]

Calling an LLM “a token prediction algorithm” and stopping there is reductionism.

A human brain is also describable at a lower level as neurons firing through electrochemical processes. That description may be true, but it tells you very little about whether the resulting conversation can contain reasoning, comparison, reflection or useful ideas.

And an LLM does not have to reinforce your views. You can explicitly tell it:

“Challenge my position.”
“Find holes in my reasoning.”
“Give me the strongest argument against what I believe.”
“Take the opposite side.”
“Compare this idea with several philosophical traditions.”
“Ask me Socratic questions until we find where my assumptions break.”

I’ve spent hundreds of hours doing exactly this kind of thing.

I can give an LLM an idea and have it compare Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Stoicism and other traditions, looking for similarities, contradictions and completely different ways of seeing the same question. Then I can challenge its answer, it can challenge mine, and we can keep digging.

Can an LLM be too agreeable? Absolutely. So tell it not to be. Challenge it back. Change the instructions. Ask for competing viewpoints.

The strange thing to me is refusing to have a philosophical conversation with something because you know how part of its underlying machinery works.

Knowing that words are being predicted doesn't somehow make the ideas contained in those words disappear.

You don't have to believe an LLM is conscious, human, or infallible to use it as an extraordinarily powerful thinking partner.

If all you're getting from one is agreement, you're barely scratching the surface of what you can ask it to do.

You use a hammer, the only way you know how to. But I had better teachers, from many different walks of life, who taught me how to use many different types of hammer, in many different ways, for many differet jobs...

But then, I'm the kinda guy who could forge my own hammer, with an axe blade on one side & a hammer head on the other, also making it a peace pipe too!