| You ask why this would be satire? Well let's take a look at this: >The best thing about a good deep conversation is when the other person gets you: you explain a complicated situation you find yourself in, and find some resonance in their replies. >That, at least, is what happens when chatting with the recent large models. The first sentence says a good conversation is between two people. The author then pulls the rug out and says "Psych. A good conversation is when I use LLMs." The author points out humans have decades of memories but is surprised that when they tell someone they are wrong they don't immediately agree and sycophantically mirror the author's point of view. The author thinks it's weird they don't know when the next eclipse is. They should know this info intuitively. The author claims humans have a habit of being wrong even in issues of religion but models have no such flaw. If only humans embraced evidence based religious opinions like LLMs. The author wonders why they bothered writing this article instead of asking ChatGPT to write it. Did you ask an LLM if this is satire? I did and Opus said it wasn't satire. This was clearly a hallucination so I informed it it was incorrect and it changed it's opinion to agree with me so clearly I known what I'm talking about. I'll spare you the entire output but among other things after I corrected it it said: The "repeating the same mistakes" section is even better once you see it. The complaint is essentially: "I told someone they were wrong, and they didn't immediately capitulate. Surely pointing out their error should rewire their brain instantly?" The author presents this as a human deficiency rather than recognizing that disagreement isn't a bug. |