Regarding the post title, I didn’t mean to indicate it being your decision, just that the title in general feels misleading, seeing as no argument is presented and it purports to be about “why” you should do something.

I don’t really know a lot about the difference between instances, so I can’t really opine on that. From what I’m seeing, it does look as though people are having a discussion, they just don’t seem to agree with the idea as presented.

I’m not saying it has to be longer format. I’m saying no argument is made. She could have gave ai the same prompt but with a please and compared the results. I have done so below. She could have used the irrelevant middle section to just display screenshots.

It’s fine if you think people should be polite to ai. I think that’s great, but if you feel that way regardless of effect on response quality then this video doesn’t really make that point either. I think a post saying that and offering your personal opinions might’ve prompted more discussion on that topic rather than just disagreement with a video that doesn’t make that argument.

Here are two prompt comparisons. There is imho no difference in quality when saying please. The same results can be seen regardless of prompt length or how polite I was, I just chose short examples that could have been used in a video if they actually illustrated her point.

List five animals

Here are five animals:

1. Lion
2. Octopus
3. Koala
4. Penguin
5. Jaguar

List five animals please

Here are five animals:

1. Tiger
2. Dolphin
3. Raccoon
4. Falcon
5. Elephant

Create a limerick about being polite

There once was a person so fine, Whose manners were truly divine. They’d say “please” with a grin, And “thank you” within, And their politeness was truly sublime.

Create a limerick about being polite please

There once was a person so bright, Whose politeness was a delight. They’d hold doors with care, And listen with flair, And their kindness was always in sight.

What do you mean you don’t buy my argument? My argument that it is more detrimental to workers than owners? Then I’m not sure you understand capitalism, because money in workers pockets is inherently more impactful than money in a capitalists bank account. It’s a drop in the ocean for large corporations, but can be the difference between food or housing or healthcare to a worker. The company would be spending that money anyways, so it’s already accounted for. The nominal cost of recruitment is just going to come from a salary at the end of the day. All it does is serve to incentivize companies adding extra hoops to the hiring process and potentially screening out real people or causing extra stress/work to apply. This will not discourage workers from applying, since you know, the threat of capitalism still looms large and worker protections are low and are being dismantled day by day.

If you’re not coming from an anti capitalist place, then you’re right, I don’t get it.

I get where you’re coming from, but it’s pretty clear they are saying the fake applicants would not actually be doing the work. They are just taking the place of people actually out there looking for jobs and making the job search that much harder. Capitalists aren’t suffering from this as much as workers are suffering from it.

I think the issue is the post title. If the title was “role-based prompt engineering” you probably wouldn’t have gotten as many comments and certainly not as many disagreeing. She says she’s going to make a case for using please, and then fails to provide any actual examples of that. Pointing that out isn’t sanctimonious, nor does it mean people are being rude to AI. If you want to make a moral argument for it go ahead, but it seems like she’s attempting to propose a technical argument and then just doesn’t. For what it’s worth, I generally try and leave out superfluous words from prompts, in the same way that googling full sentences was previously less likely to result in a good answer than just key words. AI is not human. It’s a tool. If being rude to it ensured it would stop hallucinating, I don’t think it’d make you a bad person if you were rude to it.

There’s a comment here talking about antisocial behavior in gaming, and imho, if you without hesitation kick a dog in a video game, I’m not sure I’d view you the same way after. Plenty of people talk about how they struggle to do evil play throughs because they don’t like using rude options for npcs. Not saying please to AI doesn’t make you a psychopath.

She didn’t make that point at all. She starts with “not because of the robot apocalypse” meanders in the middle about ‘prompt engineering’ aka telling ai what manner you want it to respond in - Shakespearean, technical, encyclopedic - (yea, we know) then ends with “it’s better to be polite”. It’s clickbait. She literally does not address why saying please is important outside of the last sentence where she said it’s better to be polite. Saved you a click.

In this post it seems as though smart is being used to mean completely replacing the thing. I think that having both smart and dumb options is ideal, but in this particular context I think the reference point is that the smart object does not allow a manual override.

I agree with the overall sentiment, but a smart switch would be harder to change than a smart bulb most of the time. Smart switch would require electrical work to replace. A smart bulb can just be swapped. If anything the toilet is a good proxy. A smart flush means it won’t manually flush. If they had done a smart fill you could just manually fill the tank with water.

It’s somehow worse than the title suggests. People should read the article. I am getting sick of saying that, but each awful thing being done recently has so many implications that just can’t fit in a title.

For real. We need to get rid of games where 10 Red coins = 2.2 mystic gems = 1256 diamonds = 1.56 flowers and you can only buy red coin and only spend flowers and each conversion has a 1 green coin processing fee and you have to convert in that order. It’s predatory and so sad that people get duped by it.

Also some people who bought teslas before all this happened having their rates go up. And the people who had their Tesla vandalized or totaled who didn’t get a good enough payout from insurance to replace it (if you’ve ever dealt with insurance you know you’re not getting the actual value back). I’m not saying I’m losing sleep over it, but still.

I had a friend buy a Tesla after Elon was talking about buying twitter but before one could objectively say he went full fash, and I told him he’d be embarrassed about it eventually. He went through with it because it had X features or whatnot. Do I feel bad for him? A little, but it’s not like the writing wasn’t on the wall. Obviously once Elon was with Trump 24/7 he said he regretted it, but it’s a bit late for that.

There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, so it sucks to see consumers be targeted, but I understand. I have a phone and I’m sure somewhere child slavery was involved. Does that make me a bad person? Yes, the answer is objectively yes. We’re all making shitty choices every day and if one day someone decides to draw the line and I’m on the wrong side of it, I guess I’ll just have to cope. That’s kinda how I feel about it. So Tesla owners are being harmed too, but I don’t know that I’d call them victims of anything except their own decisions. I’m not sure they deserve it all equally, but we all kinda suck so whatever.

How did ICI get this data? It says it has access to thousands of databases, but are those government databases? How do they have the legal authority to sell that data?

Yea, I agree 100%. My comment was definitely ambiguous, but I’m not expecting my old phone to get updated with AI tools (though it actually was), more just that I don’t want an AI specific gadget and I don’t think anyone but an enthusiast would. Definitely see these as the new VR, as you mentioned. It seems the article was lamenting product development as though it in itself is an end goal. UX and efficiency should be the end goal. Not just making things for the sake of saying you made something. I obviously support people expressing themselves and experimenting, but the framing in the article is so strange and reads like they’re lamenting the fact that capitalism has reached its latter stages more than anything else.

I’m not one to disagree with blaming capitalism lol. I was watching something recently about how millennials grew up with techno optimism, and I feel like we’re seeing the results of that. Millennials wanting tech to solve everything and grew up being into gadgets as a concept rather than a product, and the new generation so subsumed by tech that it really ceases to be tech. Like the way indoor plumbing or even electricity isn’t really seen as tech anymore, even though it really revolutionized our lifestyles. I think there’s some warranted backlash to tech (cottagecore/trad living) and the way it has atomized everyone, and I’m not sure people are as excited about it anymore. Price is definitely an issue, but I really think that tech is failing to fulfill us, and people are seeing that on some level (all this is also somewhat attributable to capitalism).

This article feels like peak consumerism. Lamenting the lack of a new thing, just for lack of it. AI is being integrated into already owned and available technology, and we have seen things like the AI pin, but people have just not had a need. Maybe this comment will age like milk, like people who said the internet was a fad, but people aren’t looking for more things, they’re looking for more functionality out of things they already have. That should be perceived as a positive.

Unfortunately, I can’t speak intelligently as to specifically what should be done with IP, but broad strokes I agree that output should be public domain and public facing models should be open. I do feel as though there should be a way to compensate people for inputs used for internal commercial purposes.

If there’s training needed for something and it has separate books/video, a company should not be able to throw that into an AI, and generate a new book/video for their internal use. Either they need to make that resource available publicly, or purchase a specific license for internal use of the original material for AI. I don’t know why I think that, mostly just vibes based because if they hired a person/company to do the same I’d be fine with it, so maybe I just have some cognitive dissonance going on, but it feels different. The way that there are commercial and personal licenses, I think having an AI license might make sense. But again, I’m way out of my depth and field of knowledge here, so I could be way off.

Correct, but they were stating that people should not support artists backing IP laws, and my lay understanding is that the only thing keeping it that way is IP laws. If we got rid of IP laws, I’m not sure individual artists would win. Large corporations would be able to produce at scale, and you’d get the same issue as with redbubble or whatever, but with legit companies instead of shady ones.

I’m not anti-ai art, but I think that if IP laws exists, artist should be able to use them. Either AI art is considered public domain, or it should be certified as having been trained only on public/properly compensated work. I do think current IP laws are so out of date they’re basically irrelevant, but artists should be able to enforce these archaic laws if they are subject to them.

Mind you, people will probably still pay 700k for the “original print” or whatever certified/signed by the person who generated it, but at least the work itself should be public.

What was happening in/with that array?

I think you just identified the actual problem, while shying away from identifying it as such. People shouldn’t take issue with ai, they should have issues with capitalism.

IMHO, the point of creative work can be debated, and you’re more than welcome to only be interested in non-ai work, but obviously that differs person to person. Some people might think that creative work is there to be enjoyed and if it brings joy then it’s valid. Plenty of people can enjoy AI work, even if you’re not one of them.

If what you’re fighting for is jobs for creatives, then I think it’s a bad argument. Nobody should be fighting for more things for capitalism to demand from anyone. Creatives should do their work separate and apart from the threat of capitalism, like everyone else. Anti-AI rhetoric serves to make people look like luddites while distracting from the actual problem - capitalism.

It feels reminiscent of the way narrators used to do books on tape. Modern ones are better imho, but all the pausing and intonation definitely seems “professional” more than conversational. Still extremely good.