China and Russia are considered less of a threat to Western populations now than a year ago, as public concern pivots to non-traditional risks, according to new research.
I hear the people thinking about how “clever” and “lifelike” chatbots sound and how they can’t tell the difference between them and people, and I’m just like…seriously? They only have the same half dozen canned responses to everything and just try to use big words to sound like they know what they’re talking about.
Then I think about all these Redditor/Lemmy libs and I can see how they would be amazed and astounded at such a technology.
Its another consequence of the current focus on aesthetics, in this case rhetoric.
You could say the most ignorant statement ever, but if you do it with fancy words you are going to be taken seriously. The prime example of this is JPeterson.
Yeah, people don’t seem to know how to weight the value of an argument, and seem to assume an argument is well thought out and intelligent if it uses a lot of big words they don’t quite understand but can sort of grasp through context (makes them feel smart) and has a very simple underlying message that they get to “figure out” (makes them feel like they solved a puzzle).
It kind of feels like B.F. Skinner’s ideas applied to debate and essay structure.
I hear the people thinking about how “clever” and “lifelike” chatbots sound and how they can’t tell the difference between them and people, and I’m just like…seriously? They only have the same half dozen canned responses to everything and just try to use big words to sound like they know what they’re talking about.
Then I think about all these Redditor/Lemmy libs and I can see how they would be amazed and astounded at such a technology.
Its another consequence of the current focus on aesthetics, in this case rhetoric.
You could say the most ignorant statement ever, but if you do it with fancy words you are going to be taken seriously. The prime example of this is JPeterson.
Yeah, people don’t seem to know how to weight the value of an argument, and seem to assume an argument is well thought out and intelligent if it uses a lot of big words they don’t quite understand but can sort of grasp through context (makes them feel smart) and has a very simple underlying message that they get to “figure out” (makes them feel like they solved a puzzle).
It kind of feels like B.F. Skinner’s ideas applied to debate and essay structure.