AIs don't do what you want. This is bad

> I learnt earlier that claude forcefully closes a conversation if you call it a wanker too many times in a row.

How exactly does it forcefully close a conversation?

> Pretending that LLMs are capable of being offended feels like a misalignment all of its own.

If training sets show people statistically being offended by rudeness directed toward them, then an LLM will presumably have some tendency to respond similarly. There's no pretending about anything, it's explicitly mimicry.

If this forceful closure is coming from some "guardrail" outside the model then probably it's just that they don't want people to see the model responding that way to name calling. This is no profound discovery or conspiracy theory here, the first thing many people will ever do with AI is see what happens when they are rude or contrary to it. Dealing with that must be just about the the number one test in chat bot / AI design, ahead of actually doing something useful and helpful.

Sure, but I'm not sure allowing AI agents to act as abuse sponges for troubled people enabling them to spiral into their unhealthy habits is good idea that would lead to great outcomes long term.

So I'd rather take LLM pretending to be offended over the alternative.

Or more simply, accept revealed costs.

This is simply a different kind of AI than LLMs will ever be. There may be some kind of architecture that does this in the future, but it's not, and can never be a neural network that is attempting to be AGI.

Can you expand on this for someone that is a dummy and new to using LLM's properly?

the LLM is roleplaying. whether or not the roleplay is successful is a tension between is model weights and its context. then indirectly, the quality of both.

but its still roleplaying and the role is an abstraction we cant measure. its the negative space.

its basically: we can define its role but it constructs its environment from the role. the same way a child role plays as a caregiver, the LLM does the same.

its like All the things Havard taught you (finite) vs All the things Havard doesnt teach you (infinite).

the LLM is in the infinite negative space. we call it role play.

I had updated a GQL schema and wanted my agent to update the frontend to suit. I told it the server was running, that it could run specific commands to regen types, etc.

It got itself in a loop and killed the running backend process, then searched my filesystem for the changes it thought it needed (not the ones I gave it) in order to run its own copy of the backend.

That is precisely _not_ what I _told_ it to do. The other part of this is that I find, unless explicitly told to ask questions, they don't do a good job of gathering evidence before making such decisions. I'd much rather have my agent ask me a clarifying question than start killing processes at will.

No, it's not, because not exceeding those permissions and safeguards is part of what I want.

People tend to be unaware of how much information is encoded in human society, hence why overseas developers can be a problem quite often because they live in a society with different rules.

We also tend to ignore how much on boarding with new developers and sometimes it takes months to get them fully up to speed.

This leads to two problems with LLMs, one human and one architectural.

First humans treat the LLM like a magic machine "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" Style.

The other is an AI context is terribly small so you can only work on issues that fit in the context without getting compressed out. Something highly original will take a lot more context than expected.

Yes. Capital wants people to make paid, centralized LLM services the core of their business and identity. Capital wants to monetize and control every aspect of human existence, thought and expression, and people are throwing themselves into the torment nexus en masse with enthusiasm. It doesn't actually matter how well AI works, what it improves or doesn't, or how badly they fail. AI must be unavoidable and inevitable, integrated into our lives so deeply and thoroughly that we don't notice it the way we don't notice the air we breathe.

The world's economies are already propped up by AI to a degree that makes it too big to fail at a scale that dwarfs banks during 2008. AI is the single Jenga block keeping our entire technological civilization from tumbling into the abyss. Governments are using AI to shape policy. Militaries are using AI to kill people. AI is writing law, writing science, generating culture, shaping human perception, shaping human communication, replacing human connection. AI is literally god for some people. It gives the illusion of liberation but is really just a means of control, and it's a means of control that if you hate you can't avoid, and that otherwise you can't resist.

And barring some insane technological leaps it requires massive infrastructure, compute and proprietary resources to be useful, for most definitions of useful (see tfa.) If you think you'll ever be allowed to compete or truly be a threat to entrenched capitalist interests using "free" and "open source" models, you're delusional. You'll pay for everything and you'll own nothing. And sure, sometimes someone's toaster will talk them into sharing a bath but that's just the price we have to pay for living in the future.

Yeah, AI seems to serve the interests of capital better than anything, ever, really. If AI is god, then that god's name is Mammon.

  You will soon have your God,
  and you will make it
  with your own hands.

      -- Morpheus
         Deus Ex

I've been tasked with justifying the renewal of software I would never choose to begin with. It has occurred to me that I could easily use AI to make up the required text.

I guess AI is a new form of alienation and also a new light on the lunacy of bureaucracy.

Don't use grok.

They are about 80% agreeable. Which is annoying when I'm actually unsure about something having to extremely carefully craft my prompts so that the output isn't biased by agreeableness.

I'm lazy and just use Gemini because its included in my workspace sub.

I occasional test it out and suggest something dumb and it will tell me that its a dumb idea.

I also always ask AI to speak to me as if it were an Australian bogan and it has no problem telling me my code looks like a dogs breakfast or that ive lost the plot. Keeps me grounded.

I forget where I read this but someone pointed out that's probably the reason why vacant CEOs/execs and their wannabes love it so much.