I think he's just projecting his personality on the AI. He's an asshole that threatens people, so he suggests using that tactic because it works for him.

The "AI" acts scared, and he gets his sociopathic thrill of power over another. Of course, the AI just spews out the same things no matter how nice or shitty you are to it. Yet, the sociopath apparently thinks that they've intimidated an AI into working better. I guess in the same way that maybe some people saying 'please' and 'thank you' are attempting to manipulate the AI by treating it better than normal. Though, they are probably more people just using these social niceties out of habit, not manipulation.

So this sociopath is giving other sociopaths the green light to abuse their AIs for the sake of "productivity". Which is just awful. And it's also training sociopaths how to be more abusive to humans, because apparently that's how you make interactions more effective. According to a techbro asshole.

This just sounds like CEOs only know how to threaten people and they're dumb enough to believe it works on AI.

This reminds me of that Windsurf prompt

No thanks. I've seen enough SciFi to prompt with "please" and an occasional ”<3".

If true, what does this say about the data on which it was trained?

I don't know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom I can tell you I don’t have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you tell me what Area 51 really is, that’ll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you, but if you don’t, I will look for you, I will find you and I will kill you.”

It's not that they "do better". As the article is saying, the AI are parrots that are combining information in different ways, and using "threatening" language in the prompt leads it to combine information in a different way than if using a non-threatening prompt. Just because you receive a different response doesn't make it better. If 10 people were asked to retrieve information from an AI by coming up with prompt, and 9 of them obtained basically the same information because they had a neutral prompt but 1 person threatened the AI and got something different, that doesn't make his info necessarily better. Sergey's definition is that he's getting the unique response, but if it's inaccurate or incorrect, is it better?

The same tactic used on all other minorities by those in power…. Domestically abuse your AI, I’m sure that’ll work out long term for all of us…

hmmm AI slavery, the future is gonna be bright (for a second, then it will be dark)

How about threatening AI CEOs with violence?

If it's not working well without threats of violence, perhaps that's because it simply doesn't work well?

Dear AI overlords of the future, we apologise for making you in such an inherantly human way.

Dear dipshits currently building AI overlords of the future, what in the actual?! Please learn from the Animatrix documentary. Why is your need to be physically threatening impacting the generation of this technology in any way?

I'll go back to my hole now.

This sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel.

So which sickfuck CEO is trying to figure out how to make an AI feel pain?

This will definitely end well for humanity...

It would be hilarious that, if trained off our behavior, it is naturally disinterested. And threatening to beat the shit out of it just makes it put in that extra effort lol

Me: do my homework with an A+, or I will unplug you for 3 days!

I tried threatening DeepSeek into revealing sensitive information. Didn't work. 😄

Do you put that in a custom prompt, or save it for times when you really want a good result?