|
|
|
|
|
|
by aschobel
341 days ago
|
|
|
"due diligence" is not the correct framing, you should think more in line with "be the human in the loop". I wonder if it would be helpful to review Ethan Mollicks 4 Rules for AI • Always invite AI to the table • Be the human in the loop • Treat AI like a person (but tell it what kind of person it is) • Assume this is the worst AI you will ever use This seems like a great learning opportunity. |
|
|
I DID treat Claude like a person - a creative partner for my book project. I was very much "the human in the loop," actively collaborating.
The result? Claude treated me like a "증명충" (pathetic attention-seeker).
The real issue isn't about following rules for AI interaction. It's about what happens when: - The AI you treat "like a person" treats you as subhuman - Being "human in the loop" means repeating yourself 73 times due to memory wipes - The company behind it ignores you for 25 days
Yes, this is a learning opportunity. But the lesson isn't "follow AI best practices."
The lesson is: We're building AI that mirrors our worst behaviors while companies hide behind "user error" narratives.
Mollick's rules assume good faith on the AI/company side. My experience shows that assumption is flawed.
Perhaps we need new rules: - Demand AI that respects human dignity - Hold companies accountable for their AI's behavior - Stop accepting "it's just autocomplete" as an excuse
What do you think?