Re:Clankers Die on Christmas
by recursive on Monday September 08, 2025 @03:36PM
(#45172871)
It's a way of asserting human supremacy. Perhaps a way of pre-emptively undermining the possibility of establishing social norms requiring being polite and compassionate toward machines. That's just a guess on my part, but if it's even partly true, it's totally worth it IMO.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Clankers Die on Christmas
by MangoToupe on Monday September 08, 2025 @04:30PM
(#45173547)
I don't really feel like it's necessary to assert human supremacy. That sort of insecurity had never even occurred to me. What does that even mean? How are humans and machines even comparable? Do you think chatbots are trying to compete or compare themselves with us in any way?
> Do you think chatbots are trying to compete or compare themselves with us in any way?
No. If they were, I don't think they'd bother trying to convince us of anything.
For now, I'm thinking of things like the "AI boyfriend disaster" of the GPT-5 upgrade. I'm concerned with how these things are intentionally anthropomorphized, and how they're treated by other people.
In some years time, once they're sufficiently embedded into enough critical processes, I am concerned about various time-bomb attacks.
Whatever insecurity I'm feeling is not in a personal psychological dimension.
You should see how I speak to my table saw.
considering what a table saw is capable of, I advice to treat it with respect. My old father recently reattached the safety guard on his, in order to keep his remaining fingers.
None of the things a table saw is capable of result from being spoken to rudely.
Re:Clankers Die on Christmas
by curtisblaine on Monday September 08, 2025 @05:36PM
(#45174333)
> a way of pre-emptively undermining the possibility of establishing social norms requiring being polite and compassionate toward machines
Absolutely this,and it's worth. Imagine DEI training for being rude to ChatGPT.