5 ms·

Thank you to those who see beyond the $270 to the real issues. For those still focused on "due diligence" - yes, I should have verified. Lesson learned. But c

by hadao 1y ago

Thank you to those who see beyond the $270 to the real issues. For those still focused on "due diligence" - yes, I should have verified. Lesson learned. But can we talk about why a company building AGI: - Can't handle basic customer communication - Lets their AI develop contempt for users - Thinks 25 days of silence is acceptable If they can't get human interaction right at $200/month, what happens when they're controlling systems that affect millions? This is our canary in the coal mine moment.

aschobel 1y ago
"due diligence" is not the correct framing, you should think more in line with "be the human in the loop". I wonder if it would be helpful to review Ethan Mollicks 4 Rules for AI • Always invite AI to the table • Be the human in the loop • Treat AI like a person (but tell it what kind of person it is) • Assume this is the worst AI you will ever use This seems like a great learning opportunity.
- hadao 1y ago
  @aschobel I appreciate Mollick's framework, but here's where it breaks down: I DID treat Claude like a person - a creative partner for my book project. I was very much "the human in the loop," actively collaborating. The result? Claude treated me like a "증명충" (pathetic attention-seeker). The real issue isn't about following rules for AI interaction. It's about what happens when: - The AI you treat "like a person" treats you as subhuman - Being "human in the loop" means repeating yourself 73 times due to memory wipes - The company behind it ignores you for 25 days Yes, this is a learning opportunity. But the lesson isn't "follow AI best practices." The lesson is: We're building AI that mirrors our worst behaviors while companies hide behind "user error" narratives. Mollick's rules assume good faith on the AI/company side. My experience shows that assumption is flawed. Perhaps we need new rules: - Demand AI that respects human dignity - Hold companies accountable for their AI's behavior - Stop accepting "it's just autocomplete" as an excuse What do you think?

by hadao 1y ago

aschobel 1y ago

"due diligence" is not the correct framing, you should think more in line with "be the human in the loop". I wonder if it would be helpful to review Ethan Mollicks 4 Rules for AI • Always invite AI to the table • Be the human in the loop • Treat AI like a person (but tell it what kind of person it is) • Assume this is the worst AI you will ever use This seems like a great learning opportunity.

hadao 1y ago
@aschobel I appreciate Mollick's framework, but here's where it breaks down: I DID treat Claude like a person - a creative partner for my book project. I was very much "the human in the loop," actively collaborating. The result? Claude treated me like a "증명충" (pathetic attention-seeker). The real issue isn't about following rules for AI interaction. It's about what happens when: - The AI you treat "like a person" treats you as subhuman - Being "human in the loop" means repeating yourself 73 times due to memory wipes - The company behind it ignores you for 25 days Yes, this is a learning opportunity. But the lesson isn't "follow AI best practices." The lesson is: We're building AI that mirrors our worst behaviors while companies hide behind "user error" narratives. Mollick's rules assume good faith on the AI/company side. My experience shows that assumption is flawed. Perhaps we need new rules: - Demand AI that respects human dignity - Hold companies accountable for their AI's behavior - Stop accepting "it's just autocomplete" as an excuse What do you think?