At first I was gonna say that if a person prefers the response of an A.I. to yours it is a reflection of your own lack of understanding, articulation, effective communication, etc.

Then I remembered a passage from 'Never Split The Difference' by Voss (a book on negotiation) which went something like:

If you can get a person to "You're right" you haven't done anything. If you can get them to "That's right" you've hit the sweet spot.

When you prompt an A.I. you have pre-conditioned the answer on something which came from yourself. There is something about this which turns what would normally be a "You're (the LLM) right" to a "That's right" and that something is an implicit desire toward "I'm right".

Side note: In 'The Dawn of Everything' there is an interesting passage about the notion of private property arising from the idea that injecting some of yourself (labor) into a thing (land) makes the thing an extension of yourself (property). Doesn't this logic extend to this kind of psychosis? The C-suite's aren't deffering to A.I. they are deffering to themselves via A.I.

We are so ******, am I right?

> At first I was gonna say that if a person prefers the response of an A.I. to yours it is a reflection of your own lack of understanding, articulation, effective communication, etc.

I think that people in general need to be better at receiving information that isn't perfectly pitched to them. It is a useful life skill to be able to understand the substance of someone's argument, and to look past the superficial way that it is presented. Postel's law applied to human communication.

Someone can be very frustrated and angry, and it can be upsetting to hear how they're presenting their argument, but they can be correct.

Another person can also whisper everything you want to hear in your ears, but lead you down the wrong path.

In a well-functioning society, I would think our senior leadership would be experienced and actually good at doing this and it would be expected of them. Flipping that around and blaming the subordinate for how they've pitched the message is backwards and probably not societally healthy.

Agreed, we are definitely ******.

> a reflection of your own lack of understanding, articulation, effective communication, etc.

After many years of bashing myself for not being understood at the workplace, I now realize that I never questioned if leadership was actually competent.

If they want to work with engineers effectively they have to understand jargon, communication styles, they have to understand the big tradeoffs and requirements that comes with owning a codebase at least on a rudimentary level.

You can't just go to business school and effectively manage trains and railroads if you had no clue about them.

So if you don't know how to communicate effectively with engineers whom you are paying for solving technical issues and not for their eloquence you are not competent.

We should stop apologizing for our existing when we try tell our bosses not to run into an iceberg, just because ChatGPT told them: "You're absolutely correct! The ship you built is stronger than the iceberg as it is made of metal and ice is just water.".

There are manifold objections to Locke on property or rather on the appropriation of alien nature into one’s own. This characterization of the theory is the real psychosis