DrewADesign

6 ms·

1.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
You can try to say that I’m arguing whatever you like. If you’re claiming that the underlying structure of digital so-called neural networks is comparable to biological neural networks— which we’ve studied for far longer without really unde
2.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
Well, when you’re on the clock, you’re an agent of that company. And when you’re installing an indiscriminate mass-surveillance camera, calling the police on someone that’s video recording you is kind of bananas. Perhaps you don’t find t
3.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
Personally, I don’t think it’s different from any other faith-based motivation.
4.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
Yeah I like Cal’s take on it, though in this context I’d argue LLMs have even less agency, and are even less deserving of anthropomorphization than a dog is.
5.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
> I don't think knowing that will make me rich. As someone who’s not really sure that any of this is sustainable, I’d implore you to not sell yourself short. I reckon there’s a ton of dogma and nearly religious zeal among these comp
6.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
::golf clap::
7.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
It sucks because I think analogies can be useful in helping people make a mental model of complex things, which is meaningfully beneficial. The problems happen when people aren’t honest about the limits of the analogies, which is damned-nea
8.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
Situations have lots of independent variables, Doctor, and Anthropomorphism is one problematic facet of many in the way this industry is pushing LLM products. If there was a collision at an intersection with a stop sign partially obscured b
9.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
> We have no better model for how human decision making works than LLMs This is a claim that requires a lot of citations. > biologically inspired Nature inspires a lot of creation, but superficial similarities don’t mean other aspects
10.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
Can’t agree with you here. > I love how we all just collectively decided that LLM decisionmaking cannot possibly be like human decisionmaking - because if it were, the consequences would be just too awkward. In love how people get salty
11.
by DrewADesign 3d ago
I do get their usage intent. If something is at all automated, in English, we often refer to as having some amount of agency. If I started up a riding lawnmower, put a brick on the gas and pointed t it towards a field, many might say I “let
12.
by DrewADesign 4d ago
You’re not interested because you challenged my definition of negligence by inventing some glib pseudo technicality and then got flustered when I asked you to explain how it was rooted in the real world. Sometimes we get caught taking out o
13.
by DrewADesign 4d ago
I asked some pretty straightforward questions about the specific legal issues involved— the gun case being an important point in our legal system’s handling of negligence — and your answer basically translates into you not knowing. Negligen
14.
by DrewADesign 4d ago
Specifically what legal type of negligence are you referring to and how does that known or obvious rule fit into the standard legal tests? Does that known of obvious rule have to be a law? There were no ‘rules’ about attaching strings from
15.
by DrewADesign 4d ago
It’s one of design’s key responsibilities. Developers need a sophisticated mental model of how it works, and how that gets displayed. Designers need a sophisticated mental model of what problems various users are trying to solve, and the be
16.
by DrewADesign 5d ago
> We have a word for attack with no intent. It's accident. And we have a word for an accident caused by people that failed to implement proper risk mitigation, were not paying attention, and should have known better. It’s negligence
17.
by DrewADesign 5d ago
Don’t worry it’ll be gone pretty soon.
18.
by DrewADesign 5d ago
I’ve only heard the term flimflam as a name for a scam that involves tricking a cashier into giving you a bunch of money with confusing overlapping talk.
19.
by DrewADesign 5d ago
> As if generative AI needed more publicity for its “we are literally just making stuff up” approach to getting stuff done. To be fair, there are technical considerations. Like, technically, nobody in charge of these companies gives a
20.
by DrewADesign 5d ago
In my experience, there’s no better way to learn more complex programming techniques or tools than running into a brick wall with the simple tools you’re familiar with, spending a ton of time on an unreasonably irritating solution, only to
21.
by DrewADesign 5d ago
> I think a lot of HN commenters are way too disconnected from the average person This is basically an old-man-and-the-starfish situation for me. > You're making a big assumption that a user will even connect the dots If they do,
22.
by DrewADesign 6d ago
Sorry, no. Explaining why someone would have taken them at their word is definitely not stupider than blaming people who could have been lied to for trusting a company that lied to them.
23.
by DrewADesign 6d ago
Personally, I wouldn’t assume it was lying. To me, dark patterns (like manipulative wording) imply that: 1) someone in a governing body, or someone in the organization, e.g a designer, ethicist, lawyer, developer, etc. has successfully argu
24.
by DrewADesign 8d ago
Ok
25.
by DrewADesign 8d ago
I mean it sounds like a retroactively contrived explanation of events. If they released a statement on it, they clearly feel the need to give an explanation of their behavior. People criticize OpenAI every day and they rarely address it. Th
26.
by DrewADesign 8d ago
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it sounds a bit “I was just punching the air— it’s not my fault someone was in the way.” It’s not like it’s impossible, but it doesn’t immediately pass my smell test. I’ll wait until someone close enoug
27.
by DrewADesign 9d ago
The idea is that if I have $200,000 to give to a charity and I give $200,000, my $200,000 yields $200,000 for the charity. If I say I’m going to match other people’s money 2:1 and that convinces people donate $90,000, my $180,000 yields $27
28.
by DrewADesign 13d ago
And while these sponsorship shenanigans are the tech business’s bread and butter, sponsored answer manipulation seems fundamentally more insidious. Even in a larger-scale measurement like this one, there’s no way to tell if any of that is s
29.
by DrewADesign 13d ago
Judging from the handful of B school professors I’ve interacted with, I’d be surprised if they didn’t. Judging from the many HBS students I’ve interacted with, the takeaway seems to be judiciously avoiding treating people fairly.
30.
by DrewADesign 13d ago
In the tech industry of yore, corporations having tech ecosystem stewardship duties was a quaint necessary evil to placate the developer crowd so you could hire them. Today, c-suites consider that indulgent soft-hearted hippie nonsense utte

More ›