I built a ppt with claude for investors with the exact same phrase "AI infrastructure for proving and improving ... " on Oct 27 and sent it to investors. I suggested the title during the chat and claude agreed a lot. It ends up as a title of this paper 2 days later.

▲

quadrifoliate 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On the other hand, "Proving and improving" shows a lot of hits in Google Books: https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=%22proving+and+improv...

It's possible that you both hit upon or recalled the same cool phrase, especially if the "proving" part was pre-decided and you were thinking of making an incremental improvement.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

junkaccount 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

True, I agree but but its eerie they were written 2 days apart. Resting my case, thanks

	▲	junkaccount 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		it would be interesting to get to know if the authors used claude to get the title.

▲

alfonsodev 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I starting to see an increase of random serendipities, perhaps I'm looking for them, in part that's how it works, but...

I was talking to a friend about an idea I had, to build something, he said, "yes! I'm doing that too", then I said "with this specific tooling because is ideal ... " .. he said .. "me too! same tooling", I said "what a coincidence!! amazing ...wait a minute, have you been talking with Claude about this? " ... of course we both did.

My opinion is that that LLMs are influencing us more that we think, and it makes us reach the same conclusions and making us think it was our idea, or that we were the ones steering the conversation.

Perhaps you feel that Claude stole your phrase but I don't think 2 days is enough for that phrase to make it to a re-training, I think it might be more subtle and worse, perhaps you wrote that phrase influenced by the conversation, and the other person did the same.

Just a theory, I can't prove it. But if you think about it, LLMs conversation are the most plausible choices, so it is logical that we all users of this machine are going to tend to converge on the most plausible way of thinking and talking.

No offense, but perhaps that rhyme that you though it was original, it is actually the most plausible in that context.

▲

RGS1811 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I assume this is happening all over the place, because I’ve had the same experience.

The fun part is extending it to internal development at corporations. Company A thinks they’re doing interesting competitive work, but are actually being quietly shepherded to build exactly the same things in more or less the same ways as their competitors.

The weirdness of human individuals (even setting aside amorphous concepts like “taste”) is an asset because it provides occasion for actual differentiation, and that noise may turn out to be necessary for the emergence of value in the long run.

▲

junkaccount 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am not sure we always need a retraining. Even that can potentially be done but putting it in a knowledge graph can be quick. We don't know the exact workings. I understand the shepherding logic you are explaining and I have felt the exact things when writing code recently because the best thing to do is often unique in coding circumstances. But a random phrase being repeated in 2 days has a much lower probability.

▲

alfonsodev 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But is it really a random phrase? My point is that we have neuron activations, during the conversation you had the same inputs as the other person, unless you though about that phrase in the shower, if it was during the conversation you might have been lead to it, and the other person too.

Or it might be just pure chance, or might be that you are right, check your settings, in chtatgpt there is a check (activated by default ) that states you agree to help improving other conversations. I’m not sure the same is true in Claude.

	▲	junkaccount an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]