Why do you think for even a moment that they would buy only one copy, rather than every available copy of something rare and difficult to get? Anyone doing this stands to gain from destroying the only copies of something that has scarcity, to stop competitors from ever getting access to it. That's a serious concern.

Why would they do that? What is this 'should' to a company that would do this in the first place? Are you not suggesting the opposite of what they aim to produce?

How weird that all those humans seem not to trust the logic of their betters ;P

Didn't convince me. I think bullshitting like this can be a behavior, not just the intention of a human. If it's blowing a lot of smoke to use fancy words and phrasings (and semicolons! All the trimmings) it's fair to ask if it's systemically bullshitting you: i.e. the behavior is meant to have you shut up and trust it and not ask questions.

Who's driving that is still important: if the company's directing it to do that in system prompts that are adversarial to users, that's a big yikes. If it's an epiphenomenon of the company demanding it get ever smarter, maybe it's a sign that their demands are not having that result, rather they're making it bullshit more explicitly and mimic more 'smart' signifiers.

Heck, if everything is worthless, please, please try not to do anything :)

You can't go really hard unless you can come up with something people weren't expecting, but when they discover it they want it. You can't just sit around waiting for people to want things properly. That's extremely passive.

The point being, the idea of using LLMs to find what people already passively want is itself flawed, even if you like marketing and selling to people. It's a really fundamental problem with the idea.

The jargon can be functionally like bullshitting. It's preferentially aping language that's over everybody's heads in hopes of not being criticized. Whether that is a person's toxic habits (it's not, there's nobody in there) or an epiphenomenon of the design of the machine is less important: it's bullshitting if it's a social behavior there to manipulate people.

(jargon included where relevant, in hopes that people who know it will see it's the right word to use :) )

You could consider it a class of predator on people who have vulnerabilities that can give way to dependence on the LLM and an inability to function. It could be seen in that light. The underlying problem is being described in that light.

In a human interaction, when used confidently, it means 'I'm so authoritative I don't even have to front. I don't have to do the slightest thing to impress you. My foundation is so secure it doesn't need defending or justification at all". Also, 'that turns out to be outside the massive quantity of stuff I do know, how interesting'. Think Holmes, perhaps erroneously saying 'Now that I know that, I shall do my best to forget it' on the grounds that his work wasn't helped by the fact.

It could get ruined by an AI normalization of the idea that 'everybody should know literally everything, because asking an AI is the same as knowing and then you know the thing, having been told it'. Plenty of money is now marketing this position to the world, and so it's possible 'I don't know' will become ruined, a shameful response.

I feel like that may not happen in practice, though, because that pro-AI position is what used to be called 'pants-on-head R-slur' and I feel like the people who buy into this extreme position will make SUCH a disaster of things that it will tend to make that position, instead, the shameful response… and 'I don't know' will remain a valid signaling mechanism to convey 'I'm so authoritative I don't even have to front', all the more if it's more of a shocking response to get.

This is what you get. It's like the more general concept of starting with the written word (or 1000 words) and then replacing it with a picture. You've done something strikingly different, but is it serving the same function?

It's fascinating to see this stuff combine such disparate sources in unexpected ways. But it is parrot, just not in the way you're expecting.

And yet, how quickly does it cease to surprise you?

Damn right we can tell what AI's limits are. It's palpable, hard to miss. Even the people I know who're all-in on the technology are pretty jaded by now.

Do you figure he is a total fool, then? That if Grok isn't going on a tear about the Boer, that means Elon is not manipulating it to produce the answers he wants? Only if it's a disastrous failure does it mean he's doing it, which we've directly seen once?

You can say that and be correct, while also sounding a little more silly than perhaps you'd like.

edit: rather than go even harder, I'm instead going to suggest it's perfectly fine to care about things you don't hear every single time, but still like or dislike :)

My pet example is sand in the lettuce for a salad. If you dislike that particular cronch against your teeth while eating salad, it has a spectacular ability to ruin your enjoyment of your salad, even though you don't perceive it every single time. Digital distortions are like that for some of us, things like wow and flutter and vinyl surface noise are like that for others. People vary. (which is also why not to generalize about what 'people can hear')