I feel like the world has lost 30 IQ points over the last two years. I can’t think of a better way to describe it, the dumbing down of everything is palpable and accelerating.
Many comments pointing out this is part of the response rather than the prompt.
But the whole speech is the response. What do you call the bits at the start "Certainly, I can write a speech in this style" type thing, and at the end "Would you like to learn more about political speech writing?"
Perhaps something like "AI tells" but perhaps there's already an industry term.
Edit: hadn't watched the video, this is the former "response to prompt" type tell.
- I assume that politician is the one / main person in charge of doling out payments. Does that mean they share guilt/responsibility for the result?
> to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful).
- Is procedure not his job as a politician?
- If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?
> One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence [sic] should be in proportion to the gravity.
- Which is which?
- Which has more gravity and why?
- What consequences are you envisioning, in both cases?
- If, as I suspect, the consequences are lesser (proportionally) for the politician himself, what if any deterrents can be put into place to stop that behavior? After all, he manages his staff, in theory.
The slop jockey failed to deliver a cleaned up speech. The politician failed to proofread it or even just skim it once before giving the speech. The journalist failed to understand the difference between a prompt and LLM output.
Every single level failed here. Nothing works anymore. No one cares about anything making sense. I want fucking out.
I was expecting him to read a proper prompt. The prompt would be what he would tell the AI system.
“You are a speech writer, an expert on XYZ… your task is to write ABC…”
It’s not too bad, at least he is using ai. And agree we can replace many of them with AI. At least we will have the opportunity to talk to the ai directly about concerns.
One very tiny silver lining in all this will be leaked prompts. E.g. we all know how a non-apology reads, and call them out as such already, but when you see "write a really contrite apology without actually conceding anything while subtly casting doubt on the character of those making the accusations, but in a way that seems really open and constructive" it'll hit different still, I think.
I have both experienced and hear my coworkers across the tech industry complaining about having to parse slop from their peers, management and juniors they work with. AI comments on their merge requests that sound right, but are subtly incorrect and irrelevant that add to their cognitive load. PRD (Product Requirements Document) slop from PM's that are adding features for the sake of it and is essentially busy work. Leadership asking to add AI to evaluate employees and dashboards out the wazoo.
The floor has been raised for sure, and I am writing less boilerplate than before, and am able to diagnose bugs in my work quicker, but the amount of people that seemingly just copy and paste the AI output without critically thinking is causing me distress. There are seemingly no consequences either, more AI = more good.
Indeed. Manual dexterity on a bipedal robot is still in its infancy compared to LLMs. We'll need another breakthrough or two before we have robots that can play golf and schmooze with other rich robots all day.
They care so little they don't even bother to proofread once, or lack enough intelligence to distinguish a prompt meant for a machine from a speech to inform/inspire/influence a human audience.
It's a red flag. Even if they agree and understand whatever they copied from chatgpt, they were too lazy to clean up its output. Are they also too lazy to read the news or does chatgpt summarize their articles too? AI people are like emperors without clothes. Totally embarrassing to witness.
This is bad because it's only getting harder to trust people. This is not someone I would want representing me. Although I'm not thrilled about any of my representatives anyway.
You're absolutely right. Sure, I'll help you write a Hacker News comment explaining why politicians should have functional mental faculties and a coherent understanding of what they do during the course of their jobs and how their actions affect their constituents.
Policy influence idea: find out who are the assistants of policians and what ai assistant, subscription they use and give them different answers than to everyone else. You do not have to even corrupt them.
I feel like the world has lost 30 IQ points over the last two years. I can’t think of a better way to describe it, the dumbing down of everything is palpable and accelerating.
IQ levels are same as before, it's just easier to spot differences.
Many comments pointing out this is part of the response rather than the prompt.
But the whole speech is the response. What do you call the bits at the start "Certainly, I can write a speech in this style" type thing, and at the end "Would you like to learn more about political speech writing?"
Perhaps something like "AI tells" but perhaps there's already an industry term.
Edit: hadn't watched the video, this is the former "response to prompt" type tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MU6q9G0Sf0
I would rather speak to this man than anyone reading anything AI-written
To be technical, what he read wasn't prompt, it's part of the AI's response to the prompt.
But yes, it's a giant tell that politician used AI to write his speech, and he didn't thoroughly edit the response when preparing the final draft.
No, that politician trusted some poorly paid staff to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful).
The staff used an LLM and did not bother to check (or got their check wrong.)
One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence should be in proportion to the gravity.
There's a lot to unpack here.
> that politician trusted some poorly paid staff
- I assume that politician is the one / main person in charge of doling out payments. Does that mean they share guilt/responsibility for the result?
> to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful).
- Is procedure not his job as a politician?
- If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?
> One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence [sic] should be in proportion to the gravity.
- Which is which?
- Which has more gravity and why?
- What consequences are you envisioning, in both cases?
- If, as I suspect, the consequences are lesser (proportionally) for the politician himself, what if any deterrents can be put into place to stop that behavior? After all, he manages his staff, in theory.
"bro there's no way he's gonna read this"
"do it bro it'll be so funny"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vywf48Dhyns
The slop jockey failed to deliver a cleaned up speech. The politician failed to proofread it or even just skim it once before giving the speech. The journalist failed to understand the difference between a prompt and LLM output.
Every single level failed here. Nothing works anymore. No one cares about anything making sense. I want fucking out.
Encouraging that news.com.au (a Rupert Murdoch shop) staff can't tell between AI prompt and response...
> Here's a more natural flowing version of that section that reads like a legislative speech rather than a series of short points.
* AI Response. Not prompt.
I was expecting him to read a proper prompt. The prompt would be what he would tell the AI system.
“You are a speech writer, an expert on XYZ… your task is to write ABC…”
It’s not too bad, at least he is using ai. And agree we can replace many of them with AI. At least we will have the opportunity to talk to the ai directly about concerns.
One very tiny silver lining in all this will be leaked prompts. E.g. we all know how a non-apology reads, and call them out as such already, but when you see "write a really contrite apology without actually conceding anything while subtly casting doubt on the character of those making the accusations, but in a way that seems really open and constructive" it'll hit different still, I think.
> It’s not too bad, at least he is using ai.
What is not too bad about him using "AI", exactly?
This is our new normal. It's not necessarily interesting. But you have to expect nearly everyone is using AI at this point.
It is actually darkly fascinating how eager so many people are about racing towards NPCdom.
I have both experienced and hear my coworkers across the tech industry complaining about having to parse slop from their peers, management and juniors they work with. AI comments on their merge requests that sound right, but are subtly incorrect and irrelevant that add to their cognitive load. PRD (Product Requirements Document) slop from PM's that are adding features for the sake of it and is essentially busy work. Leadership asking to add AI to evaluate employees and dashboards out the wazoo.
The floor has been raised for sure, and I am writing less boilerplate than before, and am able to diagnose bugs in my work quicker, but the amount of people that seemingly just copy and paste the AI output without critically thinking is causing me distress. There are seemingly no consequences either, more AI = more good.
politicians are one of the easiest jobs to replace with AI
We've had the technology to replace what the public percieves as the job of politicians for decades.
I really hope you’re joking, but it’s hard to tell on here!
Indeed. Manual dexterity on a bipedal robot is still in its infancy compared to LLMs. We'll need another breakthrough or two before we have robots that can play golf and schmooze with other rich robots all day.
If he only reads the prompt and the RNG state of the prompt time it might be an improvement. Now people will claim that the RNG is sentient.
Why exactly is that bad?
They care so little they don't even bother to proofread once, or lack enough intelligence to distinguish a prompt meant for a machine from a speech to inform/inspire/influence a human audience.
It's a red flag. Even if they agree and understand whatever they copied from chatgpt, they were too lazy to clean up its output. Are they also too lazy to read the news or does chatgpt summarize their articles too? AI people are like emperors without clothes. Totally embarrassing to witness.
This is bad because it's only getting harder to trust people. This is not someone I would want representing me. Although I'm not thrilled about any of my representatives anyway.
You're absolutely right. Sure, I'll help you write a Hacker News comment explaining why politicians should have functional mental faculties and a coherent understanding of what they do during the course of their jobs and how their actions affect their constituents.
Policy influence idea: find out who are the assistants of policians and what ai assistant, subscription they use and give them different answers than to everyone else. You do not have to even corrupt them.
Now identify voting blocks amongst your users and do it on a national scale.
I knew it would be Canada before even opening the link, what a total embarrassment!
Mais par contre, Canada also has some tremendous senatorial committees. They asked real questions of Hinton.