zlacker

>>Jimmc4+(OP)
It is easy to point to loopy theories around superalignment, p(doom), etc. But you don't have to be hopped up on sci-fi to oppose something like GPT-4o. Low-latency response time is fine. The faking of emotions and overt references to Her (along with the suspiciously-timed relaxation of pornographic generations) are not fine. I suspect Altman/Brockman/Murati intended for this thing to be dangerous for mentally unwell users, using the exact same logic as tobacco companies.

>>nickle+491
> The faking of emotions

HEH. In previous versions, when it told jokes, were those fake jokes?

>>qarl+dj1
Those are fundamentally different things. You can tell a joke without understanding context, you can't express emotions if you don't have any. It's a computation model, it cannot feel emotion.

>>awkwar+Zl1
> you can't express emotions if you don't have any

That feels off. When I watch an actor on screen conveying emotions, there's no actual human being feeling those emotions as I watch their movie. Very dumb machines have already been rendering emotions convincingly for a while in that way, and their rendering impacts our own emotional state.

Emotions expressed through tone of voice are just one mean of nonverbal communication. We should expect more of those to develop and become more widely available next.

In a way, we're lucky all that gpt-4o seems to be hell bent on communicating how cheerful and happy it is so far, because it's certainly not the only option.

Humans can be manipulated through nonverbal communications, in a way that's harder to consciously spot than through words, and a model that's able to craft its "emotional output" would not be far from being able to use it to adjust its interlocutor or audience's frame of mind.

I for one look forward to the arrival of our increasingly charismatic and oddly convincing LLMs.