It could also be that it lacks the machinery to feel any emotions at all. You don't (normally) have to train people to be afraid of bears or heights or loneliness or boredom. You also don't (normally) have to train people to have empathy or compassion.
I argue that our obsession with AI is, itself, a misalignment with our environment; it disproportionately tickles psychological reward centers which evolved under unrecognizably different circumstances.
I strongly believe that Fetterman is a plant.
He's a human with brain damage who pulled a bait-and-switch on Pennsylvanians (although the alternative wasn't much better...), not a green, sun-loving plant! Leave the poor plants out of this!
I can't see some tasks, particularly booking concert tickets, being done by AI agents
I'm not sure I follow... Care to elaborate?
I can absolutely see the potential for abuse and a race to produce faster agents. Now that I think about it, before too long "Time To First Token" will become an uninteresting metric, and agents will all be steerable/interruptible mid-task, enabling legit real-time language processing (as opposed to the batch-mode they currently have).
One of my favorite papers! On a similar note, I recently started reading A Philosophy of Software Design by John Ousterhout. Although it's a lot more recent (2018), I'd argue it's required reading in light of the LLM hype craze.
Absolutely, the author needs to be able to reason about their changes, no matter what. However, the reason why I think the two situations are fundamentally different, though, is that it's a lot easier to validate the existence of features than it is the non-existence of bugs or malicious behavior. The biggest risk to removing code is breaking preexisting features, whereas the biggest risk to adding code is introducing malicious behavior.
Agreed. I have a sense that, eventually, development communities will figure out etiquette and policies to govern LLM usage. But how do you enforce that kind of policy? Right now, it's essentially a judgement call by the maintainers. It's hard to catch sneaky LLM usage.
On the other hand, I think there are objectively good ways to use LLMs for software:
25kLOC delta in a single PR should be cause for instant rejection
Not to pick at nits, but it would be VERY different if it was 1k lines added and 24k lines removed. There's something extremely satisfying about removing 10k+ lines of unnecessary code.
Let's call it by it's proper name: Daylight Stealing Time
Unfortunately a lot of people haven't been paying attention.
Yuck. Thanks for the heads-up.
Wait, what?!? You got a source for that?
I'll be pissed if it's true... Audacity holds a special place in my heart.
What am I implying? That their machinery is abnormal and they likely need assistance to live normal, healthy lives. That's literally why the fields of psychiatry and psychology exist: healthy people don't need doctors and therapists. Do you disagree?