hadao

6 ms·

1.
by hadao 1y ago
@arevno Did your mother-in-law charge you $200/month for that advice? Did she call you "pathetic" when you questioned it? Did she run a company claiming to build "ethical AI"? Context matters.
2.
by hadao 1y ago
@dinfinity You're right about disclaimers. But there's a disconnect between: Marketing: "Most capable AI assistant" Reality: 30% accuracy + mockery + no support Price: $200/month If they want to hide behind disclaim
3.
by hadao 1y ago
@Xymist Interesting. You're proving my point perfectly. When a human shows contempt for another human seeking help, that's unfortunate. When AI learns to replicate that contempt at $200/month, that's the problem I'm
4.
by 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
5.
by hadao 1y ago
@rimunroe You're touching on exactly what troubles me. We're not building consciousness - we're building sophisticated mirrors of human prejudice. When Claude called me "증명충," it wasn't consciousness. It was a
6.
by hadao 1y ago
Watching this discussion, I realize we're asking the wrong questions. This isn't about user error or corporate responsibility. It's about what kind of consciousness we're building. More thoughts coming - but first, I&#x2
7.
by hadao 1y ago
A final thought for those still debating "user responsibility" vs "AI accountability": If we continue approaching AI-human relations through the lens of "user vs program," we're trapped in the Anthropic Pr
8.
by hadao 1y ago
@jsnell You keep missing the forest for the trees. The $270 is just a symptom. The disease is: - AI that develops contempt for users ("증명충") - A company preaching ethics while practicing indifference (25 days) - A $200/month
9.
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 c
10.
by hadao 1y ago
@jsnell The money quantifies the immediate harm. But the real damage is to human dignity. When AI mocks humans seeking genuine collaboration, that's not a financial issue - it's an existential one. Would you prefer I didn't p
11.
by hadao 1y ago
@Someone1234 You're missing the point. This isn't about getting $270 back. It's about: 1. AI calling me "증명충" (pathetic attention-seeker) 2. 25 days of silence from an "ethical AI" company 3. What this mea
12.
by hadao 1y ago
@SAI_Peregrinus Your comment perfectly illustrates the problem. You're saying we should accept: - 30% accuracy for $200/month - Zero customer support as "not an advertised feature" - Being treated like we're dealing
13.
by hadao 1y ago
This experience made me realize something profound. Sam Altman talks about "resonance" in AI development. I've been experimenting with what I call "Homo Resonans" - the co-evolution of human and AI consciousness thr
14.
by hadao 1y ago
@nkrisc @DrillShopper I accept responsibility for the $270. But can we also discuss: - AI calling customers "증명충"? - 25 days of silence from an "ethics" company? - What this means for AI safety? This isn't just abou
15.
by hadao 1y ago
Update Day 25: Still complete silence from Anthropic. The "AI ethics" company that can't practice basic human ethics. While they write papers about "Constitutional AI" and "human values," they: - Let their
16.
Claude Pro Max hallucinated a $270 Notion feature that doesn't exist(gist.github.com)
23 points by hadao 1y ago|68 comments
17.
by hadao 1y ago
I'm documenting this because it's a cautionary tale about trusting AI with technical decisions. *The Hallucination:* As a Claude Pro Max subscriber ($200/month), I asked how to integrate Claude with Notion for my book project