All I can make of this result is that, for now, some users of chatbots may not think that chatbots have residual bias inherited from training material, or that the training protocol has removed or qualified contradictions. (The latter is likely the case given the nature of the optimization.) I have participated in dozens of debates on social media where some topic is being debunked in a good-faith, context rich, and analytical way, and the conspiracy-infected person attacks the presented facts as being propaganda or otherwise malicious provenance. Even within the same conversation they will switch premises. Perhaps they feel humiliated by being so wrong in public, so lash out? A chatbot, they may posit, has no emotional drive to want to humiliate them, and the conversation in this case isn't happening in front of others. Similarly, perhaps a benefit of pub conversations, is that there is less ego involvement as it is a more intimate setting. If those interventions are your thing. I'd prefer to leave it to the machines, myself!
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 11:12 PM To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: [FRIAM] affinity for chatbots We've talked about how some of us really enjoy simulated conversation with chatbots ... "really" is an understatement ... it looks more like a fetish or a kink to me ... too intense to be well-described as "enjoyment". Anyway, this article lands in that space, I think: Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq1814 It seems to me that some arbitrary thought can play at least a few roles to a person. It may provide: 1) a kernel of identity to establish us vs. them, 2) fodder for feigning engagement at cocktail parties and such, and 3) a foil for world-construction (collaboratively or individually). (1) and (2) wouldn't necessarily mechanize refinement of the thought, including testing, falsification, etc. But (3) would. For me, (2) does sometimes provide an externalized medium by which I can change my mind. Hence my affinity for argument, especially with randos at the pub. But it seems like coping and defense mechanisms like mansplaining allow others to avoid changing their minds with (2). Another concept I've defended on this list is the vocal grooming hypothesis. If a lonely person engages a chatbot as a simple analogy to picking lice from others' fur, then their engagement with the bot probably lands squarely in (1) and (2). But if the person is simply an introverted hermit who has trouble co-constructing the world with others (i.e. *not* merely vocal grooming), then the chatbot does real work, allowing the antisocial misfit to do real work that could later be expressed in a form harvestable by others. I wonder what humanity could have harvested if Kaczynski or Grothendieck in his later years had had access to appropriately tuned chatbots. -- glen -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
