I have been giving some thought as to why Western societies (I cannot speak for others) who put so much store in individuality and self expression and identity are so willing to let an #LLM in the form of an #AI chat bot speak for them.
-
@Remittancegirl > so much store in individuality and self expression and identity
This has not been my experience. Anyone who deviates from very narrow gender roles is, at minimum, unkindly commented on but mostly mocked.
I wear pink patches on my bags and drink from pink unicorn cups to draw out the comments sort of like a lightning rod.
@holsta And yet you have just listed the ways in which you express your individuality, even knowing there are consequences to that and sometimes not positive ones. You put a lot of store in that mode of expression. So much so that you are risking negative interactions.
So yes, I'd say Westerners put a LOT of store in individuality compared to a lot of other cultural landscapes.
-
If we want people to use their own voices, we need to understand what they're getting out of allowing #AI to speak for them (which in essence is always AI speaking pretending to have one's best interests at heart which is a laughable falsehood)
It also occurs to me that correcting someone when they do speak for themselves - inexpertly or haltingly or confusingly - is a fairly large wound to their self-esteem.
That fear of a lack of eloquence, I think, also drives people to AI.
@Remittancegirl absolutely.
I miss my colleague's typo-y emails. I see their copilot nonsense, it's too long and waffly and its devoid of their personality.People are worried they're not coming across 'right'
Now they're just not coming across at all.
-
@Remittancegirl absolutely.
I miss my colleague's typo-y emails. I see their copilot nonsense, it's too long and waffly and its devoid of their personality.People are worried they're not coming across 'right'
Now they're just not coming across at all.
@noodlemaz That's intensely sad, isn't it?
I agree that typos and quirky grammar usage is part of a person's core. I love that about my correspondents.
-
I have been giving some thought as to why Western societies (I cannot speak for others) who put so much store in individuality and self expression and identity are so willing to let an #LLM in the form of an #AI chat bot speak for them. Because essentially, when you ask AI to write something for you, that is what you're doing.
Why are we so eager to have our own voices usurped? 1/
@Remittancegirl I'm not very surprised, tbh. Outsourcing social connections has been going on for a while, mainly through social media. Aside from commuting issues, one of the main reasons people seem to prefer WFH is to not see others. "This meeting could have been an email" is a running joke and it's not because we love being productive.
Hell IS other people, for many humans. Why not outsource talking to them to a robot? -
@holsta And yet you have just listed the ways in which you express your individuality, even knowing there are consequences to that and sometimes not positive ones. You put a lot of store in that mode of expression. So much so that you are risking negative interactions.
So yes, I'd say Westerners put a LOT of store in individuality compared to a lot of other cultural landscapes.
@Remittancegirl @holsta I would say:
FOMO
Laziness
But formost right wing conservatism, which is now loud. They do not stress individuality and self expression. On the contrary, they stress binary atructures and technical solutions, rather than creativity and individuality.
-
@Remittancegirl @holsta I would say:
FOMO
Laziness
But formost right wing conservatism, which is now loud. They do not stress individuality and self expression. On the contrary, they stress binary atructures and technical solutions, rather than creativity and individuality.
@EvelineSulman @holsta
Personally, I have found that laziness is almost always a symptom of something else. Usually a sense that speaking or acting will not make a difference. Or fear of acting, fear of speaking - low level but persistent. Or experiencing no positive feedback when one does speak or act.When people feel their voices aren't heard or respected, then it isn't that surprising they get lazy about using them.
-
I have been giving some thought as to why Western societies (I cannot speak for others) who put so much store in individuality and self expression and identity are so willing to let an #LLM in the form of an #AI chat bot speak for them. Because essentially, when you ask AI to write something for you, that is what you're doing.
Why are we so eager to have our own voices usurped? 1/
@Remittancegirl For some people, expressing their ideas clearly is a real struggle. Learning to write well is a very tall order for them. I feel very comfortable expressing myself and would only use an LLM for the odd alternative suggestion. Meanwhile, if I have to heave some heavy furniture anywhere, I'll want a little help from my more muscular friends. Even better if there were a machine I could ask rather than interrupting their lives. That's the mindset at work here I think.
-
I think one reason is that most chat bots are designed to encourage users to believe that they are 'working together'. This is utterly false, but it credits the user with work they aren't doing, which feels good.
Another could be that, despite all the outlets for personal expression, it is very easy to feel like one's voice isn't heard and doesn't matter. In that case, what does it matter if one's voice is being usurped.
Have you got any theories?
My hypothesis - and I don't have training in psychology or sociology so I don't know whether this is a trivial hypothesis or is nonsense or what - is that LLMs exploit an existing loophole in human psychology, which is that people confuse doing a thing and giving an order to do the thing.
"King Offa built a great earthworks to defend his kingdom." Really. Did he wield the spade himself?
The chatbot is built so that its interactions feel like being a manager and giving orders, which then similarly makes people feel that they personally did the thing.
-
My hypothesis - and I don't have training in psychology or sociology so I don't know whether this is a trivial hypothesis or is nonsense or what - is that LLMs exploit an existing loophole in human psychology, which is that people confuse doing a thing and giving an order to do the thing.
"King Offa built a great earthworks to defend his kingdom." Really. Did he wield the spade himself?
The chatbot is built so that its interactions feel like being a manager and giving orders, which then similarly makes people feel that they personally did the thing.
@passenger I think this is an excellent hypothesis. It's not nonsense at all. I think you've hit on something very, very insightful.
-
@Remittancegirl For some people, expressing their ideas clearly is a real struggle. Learning to write well is a very tall order for them. I feel very comfortable expressing myself and would only use an LLM for the odd alternative suggestion. Meanwhile, if I have to heave some heavy furniture anywhere, I'll want a little help from my more muscular friends. Even better if there were a machine I could ask rather than interrupting their lives. That's the mindset at work here I think.
@mfeir Here's what haunts me about this: there are two issues here.
Some people do have a struggle expressing their ideas clearly because they lack eloquence. And our society used to, at least, reward eloquence over substance often.
But often people's ideas aren't very clear. And they have not been taught how to hone them, or pin them down. In that case, the machine literally puts words in their mouth and they settle for that.
-
My hypothesis - and I don't have training in psychology or sociology so I don't know whether this is a trivial hypothesis or is nonsense or what - is that LLMs exploit an existing loophole in human psychology, which is that people confuse doing a thing and giving an order to do the thing.
"King Offa built a great earthworks to defend his kingdom." Really. Did he wield the spade himself?
The chatbot is built so that its interactions feel like being a manager and giving orders, which then similarly makes people feel that they personally did the thing.
@passenger @Remittancegirl I guess the "It's just a tool" framing doesn't help either. You questioned King Offa's claim to have built the earthworks because he actually had hundreds of peasants doing the work for him. But if one of those workers said "I built part of the earthworks," you wouldn't say that it was actually the spade that did the work because a spade is just a tool.
-
@passenger @Remittancegirl I guess the "It's just a tool" framing doesn't help either. You questioned King Offa's claim to have built the earthworks because he actually had hundreds of peasants doing the work for him. But if one of those workers said "I built part of the earthworks," you wouldn't say that it was actually the spade that did the work because a spade is just a tool.
Yeah, absolutely. It's the willingness to see other humans as nothing more than tools, and therefore to equate King Offa using the peasants, versus the peasants using spades.
-
@passenger I think this is an excellent hypothesis. It's not nonsense at all. I think you've hit on something very, very insightful.
That means a lot coming from you, thank you very much!
-
Yeah, absolutely. It's the willingness to see other humans as nothing more than tools, and therefore to equate King Offa using the peasants, versus the peasants using spades.
@passenger Yes. It is so ingrained into language - this mistaking command or demand for concrete action. Wow, I really never thought of that but it's so damn obvious once I consider it.
-
That means a lot coming from you, thank you very much!
@passenger I don't know why. But your most welcome. You offered an aspect I really hadn't considered. And the logic of it downright irrefutable.
-
My hypothesis - and I don't have training in psychology or sociology so I don't know whether this is a trivial hypothesis or is nonsense or what - is that LLMs exploit an existing loophole in human psychology, which is that people confuse doing a thing and giving an order to do the thing.
"King Offa built a great earthworks to defend his kingdom." Really. Did he wield the spade himself?
The chatbot is built so that its interactions feel like being a manager and giving orders, which then similarly makes people feel that they personally did the thing.
Interesting perspective. At the same time someone who has lost a leg, or was born without one after a while learns to walk with a prosthetic leg to help with their physical deficit.
We would probably see that as morally justified, and we would applaud modern medicine for helping those who are now able to perform physically in ways they couldn't before. But many people don't see an intellectual aid as the same kind of thing, and many find it morally compromised.
-
Yeah, absolutely. It's the willingness to see other humans as nothing more than tools, and therefore to equate King Offa using the peasants, versus the peasants using spades.
Thinking further, and a little darker, it also speaks to just how willing we all are to be instrumentalised in one way or another.
-
Interesting perspective. At the same time someone who has lost a leg, or was born without one after a while learns to walk with a prosthetic leg to help with their physical deficit.
We would probably see that as morally justified, and we would applaud modern medicine for helping those who are now able to perform physically in ways they couldn't before. But many people don't see an intellectual aid as the same kind of thing, and many find it morally compromised.
@vruz The problem is that I don't buy that they are intellectual aides. I think they masquerade as intellectual aids.
The artificial limb has no agenda. It isn't owned by oligarchs who want you to walk in a certain direction.
-
@mfeir Here's what haunts me about this: there are two issues here.
Some people do have a struggle expressing their ideas clearly because they lack eloquence. And our society used to, at least, reward eloquence over substance often.
But often people's ideas aren't very clear. And they have not been taught how to hone them, or pin them down. In that case, the machine literally puts words in their mouth and they settle for that.
@Remittancegirl @mfeir Amusingly and ironically, I'm struggling to express sharply why I don't enjoy using those generative tools. I've got some threads of thought in my head, but I haven't yet pinpointed the central thought to my own satisfaction, it remains a vague emotion. And I sure as hell am not going to settle for some dull LLM output.
-
Interesting perspective. At the same time someone who has lost a leg, or was born without one after a while learns to walk with a prosthetic leg to help with their physical deficit.
We would probably see that as morally justified, and we would applaud modern medicine for helping those who are now able to perform physically in ways they couldn't before. But many people don't see an intellectual aid as the same kind of thing, and many find it morally compromised.
Similarly, if someone uses software to read out loud what's on screen, most often nowadays that involves machine learning, and trained models that "learned" to "imitate" the human voice. Also not morally compromised, and also socially perceived as something morally acceptable, and something most of us would probably encourage.
And that's very much a real world application of artificial intelligence, identical technical foundations.
