AI models do not have ANY "take" on humans.

You ask an LLM a question, then it is humanity answering back, not the AI.

These "controversial" takes on humans are not controversial - they are midwit statistically mainstream opinions expressed in the training data.

▲

zmmmmm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To an extent yes. But there is no previous version of humanity that incorporates every perspective of every viewpoint ever expressed in writing before. It's obviously derivative of its training material but that doesn't stop it having a novel aspect.

	▲	InsidiousWombat 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, this aspect isn't novel at all

▲

iJohnDoe 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would say this probably spot on correct.

What would be more fascinating is for it to explain how it came to these conclusions.

Because I find it interesting it’s a modern time conclusion. Some of it mentioned god and the planet, but all the smartphone and group think aspects seem very recent. Basically, all politics and social media based.

	▲	HarHarVeryFunny 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> What would be more fascinating is for it to explain how it came to these conclusions The thing is that it didn't "come to these conclusions". The "conclusions" were present pre-formed in the training data, and what it spat out was some statistical mashup of that. If you asked the model how it came to these conclusions, you'll get more of the same - it'll look at what it spat out and re-ingested and give you a statistically plausible mashup of how the authors of the training data might have said they came to such conclusions. It's all just prediction - "what would the training data say?" (taking into account what was reinforced/amplified by post-training).