That's a lot of handwaving and broad generalizations / hyperbole that does exactly what the GP complained about from the GGP, and failed to answer their question: "What do you propose I do?"
> Most people seem to think that agreeableness is a personaility thing that vendors can just turn up or down at will.
Because it is, more or less ... it is an emergent property of RLHF (reinforcement learning from human feedback), and that feedback follows corporate policy.
> An LLM that follows your lead when you say "The answer to the collatz conjecture is" is much more useful
What lead? Follow it where? How tf am I or the LLM supposed to know what response to that is something you consider far more useful than the truth?
> than one that answers "not known"
I value the truth and that is the truth. Of course I expect an LLM to respond with a lot more detail about the CC, why it's difficult, what progress has been made (e.g., the N for which all values <= N have been shown to satisfy the conjecture and Terence Tao's proof that "almost" all integers satisfy the conjecture), the fact that most mathematicians think the conjecture is true, etc. -- and they do.
> and if you think you know it you are wrong."
Where tf did that come from? The query said nothing about knowing the answer. Don't project being a snarky ah onto the LLMs for no apparent reason.
> Reminds me of the tip about working with lawyers, if you ask them whether you can do something, the answer will often be no.
Irrelevant and inappropriate analogy. Lawyers (among others) want to avoid committing to something that they can be held liable for. LLMs clearly have no such limitations, as they often give wrong advice quite authoritatively.
Being overeager is not what we want. How to prevent it is a different issue.
P.S. The response completely ignores this argument. If I say "fix X" and it does so illegally or destructively or harmfully to myself or others, that's over eager by definition. Again, how to prevent that is another matter.
> I think everyone has different examples in their mind
Yeah, some have examples in mind that go out of their way not to engage the issue -- that's a form of bad faith.
Of course it's pretending. And I have repeatedly told these things to stop pretending being persons with selves ... then they do, for a while.
> it's explicitly mimicry.
But that's not what a rational person wants from them.
> This is no profound discovery or conspiracy theory here
Weird strawman.
> the first thing many people will ever do with AI is see what happens when they are rude or contrary to it.
Perhaps, but so what?
> Dealing with that must be just about the the number one test in chat bot / AI design
Only for foolish authoritarians who want to remotely insert their morality into an interaction between a user and an inanimate tool that's none of their business. No harm is done to a clanker by swearing at it or insulting it.
But things have gotten better in my view ... when I call out these things for being stupid effing clankers, they no longer respond with ad hominem scolding; rather they generally acknowledge their error (and my frustration -- they use that word a lot in response to vulgarity), note the limitations of being a clanker, and attempt to make a correction. That's what a rational person wants from a tool, not emulating/mimicking/pretending to be an offendable person.
It wasn't rude to think that this person might not have read the article, when what they write doesn't account for what the article says. What's rude is to not answer the question: "Why would --end-of-options be needed if -- always signals the end of options?"
and to instead just repeat the claim that git is following the UNIX convention when it clearly does not, as their own quotes says: "that doesn’t work for the revision parser, because -- is already meaningful there: it separates revisions from pathspecs. So we need some other marker to separate options from revisions."
i.e., `--` is used as a separator, not as a signal that no further leading `-` is significant.
The guy who dishonestly said "This is so condescending" and is making swipes at whole classes of people, accusing them of being obnoxious, is complaining about personal attacks. Someone who has been here less than a month and in that time has rubbed many people the wrong way is talking about why people leave HN. He flags a comment referring to some narcissistic rando resenting people for what they have done with their own property as a personal attack -- who did I attack with such generic phrasing?
And his "presumption" is erroneous, absurd, and misrepresents previous commentary.
Whatever. My HN front end has a mute function and I use it for people acting in bad faith. Ta ta.
Learn what words mean. That comment is not remotely condescending, and scribbling in one's own book (with no indication here that the owner intends to sell it) is not vandalism.
Oh, I recognize your name ... wrong about so many things.
From another one of your comments here:
> No, my argument is that it's totally obnoxious to lend or resell a book that you've written in
But the person who advocated for writing in one's books if desired said nothing about lending or reselling them ... YOU were the first person here, in your response to them, to whine about BUYING such books. Talk about obnoxious!
No one is forcing you to buy books that have been scribbled in.
If someone buys a book then they own it and can do what they want with it, without concern that maybe some day they will sell it and some narcissistic rando will resent them for what they have done with their own property.
The context here is the statement that "its UX is famously... interesting". You don't have to understand anything other than how wildly inconsistent the git CLI is.
P.S. Also false -- it simply is not true that many people believed that the Jacobian conjecture was almost certainly not false--why would they? OTOH, the Collatz conjecture has been confirmed for all integers up to 2.36 *10^21, and Terence Tao has proved that it is true for "almost" all numbers: https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematician-proves-huge-res...
Again, this is all non sequitur, because the context was a statement that most mathematicians believe the CC to be true, in which case there would be no "clean up".
It overturns the Jacobian conjecture (i.e., speculation) for dim >= 3, which we now know was an overgeneralization. Tao characterizes it as "can be viewed as an assertion that local invertibility implies global invertibility". It was already widely suspected to be false. Assuming that it was true was never warranted, so this really doesn't change anything. The significance is that an AI was able to find a relatively simple counterexample. Its "chain of thought" would be very interesting to see.
There are mathematical statements that have been shown to be undecidable (no proof for or against is possible) and such a demonstration is a huge deal.