> Why would I not tell AI about my personal stuff?

aside from my economic tilt against for-profit companies... precisely because your personal stuff is personal. you're depersonalizing by sharing this information with a machine that cannot even attempt to earnestly understand human psychology in good faith and then accepting its responses and incorporating them into your decision-making process.

> It's really good at giving advice.

no, it's not. it's capable of assembling words that are likely to appear near other words in a way that you can occasionally process yourself as a coherent thought. if you take it for granted that these responses constitute anything other than the mere appearance of literally the most average-possible advice, you're abdicating your own sense of self and self-preservation.

press releases aside, time and again these companies prove that they're not interested in the safety or well-being of their users. cui bono?

▲

koakuma-chan 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If these models give the most average possible advice, then average advice I get from humans must be around terrible. If you use Gemini, you can enable grounding and you will be able to see the source.

▲

GuinansEyebrows 3 days ago | parent [-]

maybe so, but you also probably have the life-changing and highly-enriching opportunity to meet new people and develop meaningful relationships nearly every single day.

	▲	koakuma-chan 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're absolutely right.

▲

astrange 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> no, it's not. it's capable of assembling words that are likely to appear near other words in a way that you can occasionally process yourself as a coherent thought.

It doesn't emit words at all. It emits subword tokens. The fact that it can assemble words from them (let alone sentences) shows it's doing something you're not giving it credit for.

> literally the most average-possible advice

"Average" is clearly magical thinking here. The "average" text would be the letter 'e'. And the average response from a base model LLM isn't the answer to a question, it's another question.

	▲	GuinansEyebrows 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		i'm comfortable enough including the backend process of assembling strings that appear to be words in the general description of "assembling words". re: average - that's at a character level, not the string level or the conceptual level that these tools essentially emulate. basically nobody would interpret "eeee ee eeeeee eee eeeeeeee eee ee" as any type of recognizable organized communication (besides dolphins).

▲

vorpalhex 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Am I depersonalizing by sharing my problems with my stuffed animal or my journal?

ELIZA has existed in emacs for a long, long time.

Humans are funny creatures who benefit frequently from explaining the problem slowly and having it fed back to them.

And for many, average advice really is a dramatic improvement over their baseline.

	▲	GuinansEyebrows 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Am I depersonalizing by sharing my problems with my stuffed animal or my journal? you're strengthening your personality with these activities. neither your journal nor your stuffed animal (cute :) ) respond to you with shallow recreations of thought - they allow you to process your internal thoughts and feelings in an alternative and self-reinforcing way. > ELIZA has existed in emacs for a long, long time. ELIZA doesn't really give advice, does it? it's a fun toy, and if there's any serious use for it, it's similar to journaling or rubber-ducking in that it's just getting you to talk about things yourself.
	▲	koakuma-chan 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Humans are funny creatures who benefit frequently from explaining the problem slowly and having it fed back to them. Yeah, sometimes I realize the solution in the process of writing a GitHub issue.