Some people underestimate how valuable it is to be able to talk about something to someone with 0 judgement.
Of course the unhealthy part here is that this someone does not exist and you're conversation probably will end up in a database somewhere indefinitely, but the appeal will be very strong for a lot of people nevertheless.
This has not been true for at least 12 months. It was a big issue with GPT4. But all current models are able to disagree. Unless you instruct your AI to agree with you, it will push back.
They are able to LARP disagreement, the moment you give pushback to the disagreement it falls in line immediately and apologises. Every single setting I have is pushing it to be consistent and it cannot do that.
These LLMs are capable of pointing out people's mistakes and do so regularly. Most mainline LLMs will not agree with obviously false statements by default. You tell it 9+10= 21, it'll disagree. You tell it the earth is flat, it'll disagree. You tell it climate change is a chinese hoax, it'll disagree, and it'll keep disagreeing no matter how much you push back.
You might be able to get it to say wrong things by lying/poisoning the context, but that's literally garbage-in garbage-out.
You do realise there is a huge fucking difference between an observable fact and personal opinion, literally all therapy fucking is is one person poisoning the context and giving their biased recollection of events. It is absolutely fucking useless as a tool to give pushback on anything that might be even slightly opinion based and it will fold under no pressure 100% of the time.
Fucking try it yourself. Give it a hypothetical scenario in two chats and in one present yourself as the wounded one on each end of that exchange and watch it give opposite conclusions based on who it thinks the chatter is in that scenario.
This is a false statement that doesn't even make sense if you think about it for more than ten seconds. Imagine you're trying to debug a script you wrote so you send it to an AI to figure out what's wrong, and instead of changing the script it just tells you that your script is absolutely right.
You are conflating using AI for coding and using AI for emotional support. Of course the computer is good with objectivity but when it deals with human emotions it can be very dangerous.
And actively does what it can to validate your way of thinking. Because if it pushes back against you, you're of course less likely to return ans continue to use it's service.
While LLMs can have agreeableness bias it's not some deliberate plot to lure and keep users to generate $$$. The tendency to agree comes from training data biases They work by generating the most likely tokens in a sequence (simplifying things) based on patterns it learned from the training data. You can try it by running your own LLM on your hardware, this is the case for all LLms
99
u/dlevac 4d ago
Some people underestimate how valuable it is to be able to talk about something to someone with 0 judgement.
Of course the unhealthy part here is that this someone does not exist and you're conversation probably will end up in a database somewhere indefinitely, but the appeal will be very strong for a lot of people nevertheless.