Gorilladrums

It's a very real thing. So much so that OpenAI actually came out and publicly complained about how it's apparently costing the company millions.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/telling-chatgpt-please-and-thank-you-costs-openai-millions-ceo-claims/

A group of people doesn’t have to be a majority to be statistically significant. If 13% of people suddenly woke up with arms growing from the tops of their heads, you’d be noticng them all the damn time, unless you’re a recluse.

The central issue issue here revolves around whether or not this is percentage is significant. You specifically said that this figure is statistically significant, which means it's calculated somewhere, right? Is this something that's calculated in the report? Did you calculate yourself? If so what was the chosen neutral baseline?

If there are no calculations and this is just your opinion, then I gotta say that I disagree with you. Your making the assumption that the 13% behave as a bloc, which doesn't sound likely.

For example, it is highly unlikely that everybody who holds this opinion is a registered or active voter. According to the Census Bureau, in the 2024 election, 73.6% of eligible voters were registered and only 65.3% were registered to vote. It's also likely that many of the people who hold this opinion are still willing to vote for women candidates even if they prefer male candidates. According to a 2019 Gallup survey, 94% of Americans were willing to vote for a female president.

This conclusion is further strengthened by the survey you shared because it showed that this 13% isn't made up of just a few demographics, but rather it's spread across all demographics. Considering how different demographics vote very differently in elections, it is very unlikely that this 13% has the ability to sway elections as you seem to imply... unless you have evidence to show that it does.

Your experience doesn’t show anything. Neither does mine, because anecdotes are not, nor ever will be, valid evidence of anything useful in discussions about social or political issues.

Okay, that is fair. However, we're using actual data now, and the data seems to indicate that my original assumption is correct. This is something that's rare in our society.

You're definitely correct that most people are ignorant on these models work. I think most people understand these models aren't sentient, but even among those who do, they don't become emotionally attached to these models. I'm just saying that the people who end up developing feelings for chatbots go beyond ignorance. They have issues that require years of therapy.

Please do. I would very much not see a clown on my feed who accuses others of things they don't even understand.

Are you sure you're not on drugs? Because this is quite the unhinged rant

Good call, I can't in good conscience allow my kids to date robots that give them 30 second unskippable ads

My point is that those people are a very small minority, and they suffer from issues that go beyond their ignorance of these how these models work.

I like how every generation has the same issue just rebranded:

Should inter tribal marriage be a thing?

Should be people from different classes be able to marry?

Should people from different religious sects be able to marry?

Should people from different religions be able to marry?

Should interracial marriage be a thing?

Should people of the same sex be able to marry?

And soon, we're about to have

Should people be able to marry robots?

The world is inherently unequal and unfair. We're all born in different bodies with varying abilities and in different circumstances. The world we're born into is one with scarce resources that cannot ever match our infinite desires. What this means is that there is no end state to social progress. There will always be inequality in the world. A world without inequality is a utopia, and utopias will never exist because they're just fantasies.

But perhaps that's not a bad thing. One of the hallmarks that define civilization is inequality. Inequality creates hierarchies, and hierarchies create order. It is through this order that we have been able to organize and mobilize to build the world we live in today. It is because people aren't entirely equal that we have different people specializing in different things to give us our complex modern economies.

In a way, inequality could be seen as a law of nature just like death. It will be something that we can never defeat, but it will always be an issue that we try to solve, or at least avoid making worse. Our disdain for inequality could be an evolutionary trait that helps keeps our primate societies healthier and stronger. If this is the case then inequality is a never ending problem, and social progress will never cease to be. Sometime it'll advance, sometimes it'll regress, but the issue will never be resolved.

If you were to go a time machine and travel another 1000 years into the future. You won't be stepping into a utopia, instead, you'll be stepping into a much more complex and advanced society that will still be facing the same types of challenges we face now. These are also the same challenges that we have faced for thousands of years, throughout all of human history. Perhaps this struggle is just a part of human nature.

I think most people understand that these LLM cannot think or reason, they're just really good tools that can analyze data, recognize patterns, and generate relevant responses based on parameters and context. The people who treat LLM chatbot like they're people have much deeper issues than just ignorance.

That's just false, civil rights weren't achieved through intimidation. The movement succeeded because it achieved it's objective through peaceful means. The movement organized peaceful protests to raise awareness and bring attention to the issues, they organized and fought legal battles challenging the status quo, they created institutions to help campaign for their causes, and disavowed violence to win over the general public. It is the prime example in history what peaceful protesting can achieve.

The civil rights movement is not alone, other movements like the suffragette movements in the West, the Salt Marches in India, the Singing revolution in the Baltics, and so on all achieved momentous things peacefully.

I don't like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you're asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We've always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they're deemed important? If that's the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what's stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.

There's a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that's quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they're only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they're our entire industry. The company's stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.

SpaceX is a private business that's stable, reliable, and competitive. They're doing exactly what they're supposed to. It's easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I'm in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial.