[andy99]

This AI written article seems to be substituting ethics for “taste” and making similar arguments to those from the past. Choosing what to do is more important than doing it is a taste problem, of which ethics is an aspect but one of many.

[jaggederest]

This kind of god-of-the-gaps thing is kind of amusing to watch, especially since I can clearly see myself doing it over time.

Even if the models never get better than they are now, which is unlikely, they're already equipped to usurp taste, ethics, and everything else to a significant degree. Human feedback will always be valuable because we assign value to human feedback, but if you don't think an ethics-bot will ever be a thing, you're not seeing the current state of things.

[spwa4]

> ... but if you don't think an ethics-bot will ever be a thing, you're not seeing the current state of things.

You mean the people who are supposed to judge ethics are lazy like everyone else and also farm out their judgement to AI like everyone else.

This is like reading EU commission press releases about regulating AI and realizing there's "AI-isms" in the press releases. They're too short, and they were sloppy before AI could be involved, so I mostly suspect this, but ... who is writing AI regulations? ChatGPT is writing those.

Let's hope OpenAI/Anthropic doesn't realize too quickly that writing their political positions into the system prompt just like they're writing their legal positions into the system prompt. The famous example being that, no, Anthropic/OpenAI did nothing wrong illegally downloading and using millions of books.