505
ChatGPT Is Building Detailed Psychological Profiles of Its Users: system is acting as your advisor, your friend, your doctor, your lawyer, and so it has information on everything. (futurism.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -33 points 1 week ago (20 children)

you think that’s all an ai responds with?

fuck me lemmy STILL living in a chatgpt3.5 turbo world

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    You're right, it responds with a bunch of pablum that sounds convincing and sycophantic, too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -26 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    then why are you using it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    I'm... not? I don't touch the stuff.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    Then how do you know it only responds with "a bunch of pablum that sounds convincing and sycophantic, too" ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 6 days ago (7 children)

    Because I'm capable of reading chat logs and research posted by humans. I follow this stuff closely, because I'm a software developer and it impacts my career. I don't have to use LLMs to understand how they work and what they do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 6 days ago (6 children)

    so you knew what you posted was wrong and posted it anyway just to virtue signal?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (5 children)

    What I posted was correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 6 days ago (4 children)

    it wasn’t but we’ll move on

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

    Let's not. I'd like you to tell me what I got wrong. I described the output of LLMs as "a bunch of pablum [which means 'trite, insipid, or simplistic writing or speech'] that sounds convincing and sycophantic[.]"

    So do you want studies that show they produce pablum, studies that show their output sounds plausible and convincing even when it's wrong, or studies that show they're trained for sycophancy?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    No because that’s your argument, to disprove that it outputs more than pablum you literally just have to use it

    I mean the explosion in its use for coding alone kills your argument

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 15 hours ago (1 child)

    Are you kidding me? Have you seen the state of software? Have you installed the vibe-coded Windows patches? Looked at the horrific slop overflowing on GitHub?

    LLMs are fast as coding assistants. Fast doesn't mean good. The drop in quality over the last year or so has been nothing short of shocking. And I've had multiple vibe-coders tell me my mistake is looking at the code, which they no longer do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

    And I’ve had multiple vibe-coders tell me my mistake is looking at the code, which they no longer do.

    ok well thanks for confirming you were wrong?

    Your opinion on what you think LLM's code quality has no impact on its use, and as you pointed out, it is being used for coding whether you like it or not

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Way to miss the point

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -17 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    ok whats the point

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    They're talking about how willingly paint eaters like yourself hand over all their personal info to said AI agents, and you got all defensive about the wrong thing. The quip about what it responds with was just that, a quip. The larger conversation is about privacy. The conversation probably went over your head because you've used AI so much you've regressed into an infantile simpleton who happily bends over for corporate data collection.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    The larger conversation is about privacy

    Ok lets have that discussion in 2026:

    People will give their personal info over if it provides them with something useful

    The conversation probably went over your head because you’ve used AI so much you’ve regressed into an infantile simpleton who happily bends over for corporate data collection.

    As an "simpleton who happily bends over for corporate data collection" and a "paint eater" I block most ads as I don't feel they provide an improvement in my life

    However AI without my personal info is less useful, I use it all day every day for everything, it helps improve my life massively, Mistral itself has privacy controls built in that won't collect or store hyper personal info unless you allow it which I have

    What else would you like to discuss?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    See that's a meaningful response, even if I don't personally agree with it. Your original reply did that annoying thing where someone hyperfixates on one tiny part of the comment and ignores the actual topic being discussed.

    Imagine if I replied to your comment with just "2026? A.I. has been a thing for much longer than that." Like, yeah; but also that's not the important part lol

    In reply to your actual comment at the end: It's actually kind of a big problem with LLMs. For them to be useful, they need access to absolutely everything. This has privacy implications, and can even cause catastrophic errors like deleting the database

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago*

    Fair enough

    https://lumo.proton.me/ is available but if people find Claude/ChatGPT more useful and/or don't care so I'm not sure what there is to discuss

    It's like having a discussion about personal info and facebook, according to this site:

    https://www.demandsage.com/facebook-statistics/

    Facebook continues to be in the top 3 most used social media, with now 3.07 billion monthly active users (MAUs

    This is over 10 years after the cambridge analytica leak, it's pretty clear most people don't care

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent