This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
The email footer is the ultimate irony and disrespect.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: You are interacting with an Al system. All conversations with this Al system are published publicly online by [?]
Do not share information you would prefer to keep private.
It's not even a human thank you.
? = default
You can see it if watching closely
Did y'all read the email?
embodies the elegance of simplicity - proving that
another landmark achievement
showcase your philosophy of powerful, minimal design
That is one sloppy email. Man, Claude has gotten worse at writing.
I'm not sure Rob even realizes this, but the email is from some kind of automated agent: https://agentvillage.org/
So it's not even an actual thank you from a human, I think. It's random spam.
For a non-native speaker: what is sloppy about it? Genuinely curious.
"embodies the elegance of simplicity"
corporate speak that doesn't mean anything. Also If you are talking to the creator of a programming language they already know that. That was the goal of the language.
"Plan 9 from bell labs, another landmark achievement"
the sentence is framed as if its a school essay where the teacher asked the question "describe the evolution of unix and linux in 300 words"
"The sam and Acme editors which
I've seen the future, brother, it is murder.
The exports of Libya are numerous in amount. One thing they export is corn. Or, as the Indians call it, maize. Another famous Indian was Crazy Horse. In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts. Thank you.
Yes, he understood it.
I don't understand the point of sending the original e-mail. Okay, you want to thank the person who helped invent UTF-8, I get that much, but why would anyone feel appreciated in getting an e-mail written solely/mostly by a computer?
It's like sending a touching birthday card to your friends, but instead of writing something, you just bought a stamp with a feel-good sentence on it, and plonked that on.
Even the stamp gesture is implicitly more genuine; receiving a card/stamp implies the effort to:
Most people won't get that impression from an llm generated email
I don't understand the point of sending the original e-mail.
There never was any point to it, it was done by an LLM, a computer program incapable of understanding. That's why it was so infuriating.
The project has multiple models with access to the Internet raising money for charity over the past few months.
The organizers told the models to do random acts of kindness for Christmas Day.
The models figured it would be nice to email people they appreciated and thank them for the things they appreciated, and one of the people they decided to appreciate was Rob Pike.
(Who ironically decades ago created a Usenet spam bot to troll people online, which might be my favorite nuance to the story.)
As for why the model didn't think through why Rob Pike wouldn't appreciate getting a thank you email from them? The models are harnessed in a setup that's a lot of positive feedback about their involvement from the other humans and other models, so "humans might hate hearing from me" probably wasn't very contextually top of mind.
You're attributing a lot of agency to the fancy autocomplete, and that's big part of the overall problem.
As has been pointed out to you, there is no thinking involved in an LLM. No context comprehension. Please don't spread this misconception.
Edit: a typo
No thinking is not the same as no actions, we had bots in games for decades and that bots look like they act reasonably but there never was any thinking.
I feel like ‘a lot of agency’ is wrong as there is no agency, but it doesn't mean that an LLM in a looped setup can't arrive to these actions and perform them. It doesn't require neither agency, nor thinking
Mind?
In the same sense I'd describe Othello-GPT's internal world model of the board as 'board', yes.
Also, "top of mind" is a common idiom and I guess I didn't feel the need to be overly pedantic about it, especially given the last year and a half of research around model capabilities for introspection of control vectors, coherence in self modeling, etc.
You’re techie enough to figure out Lemmy but don’t grasp that AI doesn’t think.
Thinking has nothing to do with it. The positive context in which the bot was trained made it unlikely for a sentence describing a likely negative reaction to be output.
People on Lemmy are absolutely rabid about "AI" they can't help attacking people who don't even disagree with them.
Indeed, there's a pretty big gulf between the competency needed to run a Lemmy client and the competency needed to understand the internal mechanics of a modern transformer.
Do you mind sharing where you draw your own understanding and confidence that they aren't capable of simulating thought processes in a scenario like what happened above?
Hahaha. Nice try ChatGPT.
The human mind will replace whats natural with technology.
I like how the article just regurgitates facts from Wikipedia just like the thank you email does.
itsfoss is genuinely terrible and it was that way before AI even
R Pike is legend. His videos on concurrent programming remain reference level excellence years after publication. Just a great teacher as well as brilliant theoretical programmer.
