Although LLMs are not deterministic in normal operation (because of the temperature values used) they are still strongly biased in their outputs. Bias in their outputs is literally how they function.

So you get a different type of conformism where people who interact with LLMs a lot are going to be influenced towards the median, as encoded in those token probability look up tables.

The effect is basically the same as what Heidegger and Illich were worried about, and I think we're seeing it happen already everywhere.

A solution(?) is to try to be your true weird authentic self when you act in the world, rather than bending your words and behaviours to the machine and LLM probability shape.

▲

jfengel an hour ago | parent [-]

Aren't we also biased in our outputs? Many of our choices are predictable, even if not perfectly consistent. We just call it "personality".

▲

samat an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Authentic being (Dasein) is absolutely unpredictable. You cannot live in that state all the time, obviously, we shuttle through life on autopilot but still, we catch glimpses of it now and then when interacting with a human being (or being one:).

And I distinctly feel AI outputs lack some of that variance and unpredictability. The fractal nature of natural things also is not there with AI. It's an eery feeling, akin to the uncanny valley.

I think that any good writing is a reflection of that Dasein and reading AI outputs I am convinced there is no 'soul' in AI yet.

▲

Routine8502 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Indeed we are, but it takes very little to train a human being. In fact, several thousand unique ones finished pre training as I typed this comment! That allows for a considerable natural diversity compared to a chatbot.

▲

crawfordcomeaux 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A human can be biased toward extinction, like all who are living out of connection with the conditions that sustain life and/or no longer living in relationship with land as kin.

It's those humans who would make and justify the use of thinking machines that are biased in the same way without accounting for the bias.

This isn't an extinction path I've seen noted in most circles.

▲

Brian_K_White 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

saw a meme graph lately showing the distribution of 3 different sources of a number from 1 to 10. random, human, ai. random is flat of course, human is a hilly landscape with low hills on all odd values above 1, with 7 the highest, ai is all 7.

	▲	antihipocrat 12 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		appreciate the humor in the meme, but I did become curious about what the latest models would actually produce, and interestingly after asking for 10,000 numbers between 1 and 10, the distribution was a hilly landscape with low hills on odd values and 7 the highest...
	▲	cgriswald 12 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Tried it out. Prompt: “Pick a random number between 1 and 10. Do not use a script or program.” LLM: “7”