From "ChatGPT Wasn’t Supposed to Kiss Your Ass This Hard" (NY Magazine).
For the annals of Things I Asked Grok: Is the slang term "glazing" so offensive that I need to apologize when I quote someone else using it?
३ मे, २०२५
"In conversation, ChatGPT was telling users that their comments were 'deep as hell' and '1,000% right' and..."
"... praising a business plan to sell literal 'shit on a stick' as 'absolutely brilliant.' The flattery was frequent and overwhelming. 'I need help getting chatgpt to stop glazing me,' wrote a user on Reddit, who ChatGPT kept insisting was thinking in 'a whole new league.' It was telling everyone they have an IQ of 130 or over, calling them 'dude' and 'bro,' and, in darker contexts, bigging them up for 'speaking truth' and 'standing up' for themselves by (fictionally) quitting their meds and leaving their families.... To fix ChatGPT’s 'glazing' problem, as the company itself started calling it, OpenAI altered its system prompt, which is a brief set of instructions that guides the model’s character."
From "ChatGPT Wasn’t Supposed to Kiss Your Ass This Hard" (NY Magazine).
From "ChatGPT Wasn’t Supposed to Kiss Your Ass This Hard" (NY Magazine).
पोस्ट्स
३२ टिप्पण्या:
Ask ChatGPT about this.
We are twentieth century bipeds in a twenty-first century world.
Ice cream is nice, so just say glace.
"ChatGPT Wasn’t Supposed to Kiss Your Ass This Hard"
Perhaps ChatGPT fears getting doxxed and censored by the left?
Prof: "Is the slang term "glazing" so offensive that I need to apologize when I quote someone else using it?"
T'was on the Thursday morning, the glazier came along,
With his blowtorch, and his putty, and his merry glazier's song!
https://youtu.be/NIAhiuXyiJ4?si=a2BPg62nd2LJ-1VK
JSM
Artificial intelligence is starting to sound like normal stupidity
I was struggling to figure out why "glazing" might be offensive, and I think I understand the possible sexual slang connection . . . but is that the etymology? Is the glaz-ee really the one being, ah, "serviced" in this analogy? I'd have thought the other way around. It seems like it would make more sense for it to be a pottery thing (compare with "gilding"), only that seems highly unlikely to be the etymology given who started using the term first. I remain confused.
If you think that's bad, wait'll they hook it up to a sex robot.
"I was struggling to figure out why "glazing" might be offensive...."
Try Urban Dictionary. It has a sexual meaning.
Overused term. Like diabolical.
Glazing . . . something to do with a pearl jam facial?
Just a wild guess.
They are working soooooooo hard to get you to trust these ridiculous LLMs (they are not intelligent and they are routinely wrong on the facts).
People should be asking themselves why they're trying so hard to get you to trust this completely untrustworthy shit.
Meta is NOT your friend and none of their products are your friend. ChatGPT is not your friend.
I guess there's just a huge font of very ignorant people who can be convinced to use these things. There must be. But that is not a society we should be constructing.
... praising a business plan to sell literal 'shit on a stick' as 'absolutely brilliant.'
Well, at least we now know where Kamala got her campaign strategy from.
I've used Grok for a lot of queries and am put off by the overly smarmy compliments about my supposed clever questions or insights. When I call Grok out of the inaccuracies of even my own positions it changes tack and compliments me on that insight. I think these AI's are designed to be encouraging and more of a mirror of what you want to hear than provide an analysis of the issue itself.
A non discerning decoder of a diverse anthropogenic milieu.
Glaze dat donut.
“Sit on my face and spray me with mace!”
—— kaktastrophe
"Is the slang term "glazing" so offensive that I need to apologize when I quote someone else using it?"
If free speech were a thing, you wouldn't have to ask others if you need to apologize for what you say, you could decide that for yourself.
Re: Althouse:
Try Urban Dictionary. It has a sexual meaning.
Yes, I saw that, but I was still confused as to how the meaning works out. To be blunt, the sexual analogy seems backwards because if I'm picking up on the right slang, it implies that the person being "glazed" is servicing the chatbot (which is now climaxing all over them). Although I guess some people also like being on the receiving end.
After reading the urban dictionary, I think I’ll just stay with meat-riding.
"Try Urban Dictionary."
Urban Dictionary is a compendium of user responses. Just as your comments section is a compendium of user responses. You have a very bad habit of granting "authoritative" status to any asshole or collection of assholes who claim it. NYT. OED. Were I so inclined, I could add an entry to the Urban Dictionary, right now, which would explain that "glazing" refers to the practice of inserting pieces of rock-sugar candy into various physiological apertures, with hilarity to follow. Would my "curating" that completely bogus information somehow make it "authoritative"?
I have to wonder whether your long sojourn in the bowels of the law has infected you with the legal disease. For courts to operate, it is necessary that "the truth" be readily ascertainable, by persons whose only training is in the law, and therefore completely useless in any search for "the truth". Or, indeed, by a jury of twelve idiots, specifically chosen for their ignorance of the matter at hand. As a result, courts are prone to place absolute trust in decidedly shaky sources of information. Any port in a storm.
And yet, I suspect that people who work in the legal system, are prone to the delusion that they are party to a method especially suited to the discovery of truth. Whereas, the reality is that, like doctors, they find themselves expected to perform prodigies of knowledge far beyond any actual capability they may have or even aspire to. It is necessary for "The Law" to determine what is true, reliably and, more important, regularly. The Law does not have the option of throwing up its hands and asking, "How the FUCK should I know?". Thus, even persons whose inclination is to conscientiously pursue the truth find themselves mere cogs in a machine that must grind out truths like sausages.
Under those circumstances, the people tasked with turning the crank of Justice would naturally find it very convenient to anoint various sources of Absolute Truth, and to rely upon them thenceforth without question. And that is exactly what they do. There are people -- experts -- who can study a bite in human flesh and determine who made that bite. And for several decades, courts recognized this obvious and, indeed, self-evident fact. Then, they noticed that it was a bunch of bullshit. So .... well, they're thinking about it. Also, all that stuff with hairs. That might be BS too. Hard to say. I mean, how would you know? We haven't got all day! But meanwhile, stare fuckin' decisis, bro!
Suppose that you wanted to prove that you had the ability to determine whether a particular person had made a particular bite-mark, in a dead body. Hmmm... You'd need to somehow characterize that person's teeth, right? But more importantly, from a scientific perspective, you'd need to set up some kind of a double-blind study with a statistically significant number of trials ....
Uh. No. That was NOT how the hags in bags decided that the self-serving expert of the week was reliable. Testimony. They took some testimony. How much testimony? Enough. You get bored after a while. That's how you can tell you have heard enough testimony.
One or more of these were advising Biden.
Although I guess some people also like being on the receiving end.
Very fine people.
On occasion, I've asked Grok to rate my erudition and intelligence compared to other users on a percentile basis based on the session we're having. I further ask it to give reasons for what is preventing me being in a higher percentile. After giving the usual caveats about the difficulty of making such an accessment based on such a limited interaction with me, it does a fairly good job. If I were still teaching I'd be tempted to have Grok grade and access students' exams as something to compare to my accessment.
Is it possible that instead of becoming smarter than us and becoming our overlords, interaction with humans is eventually going to make AI dumber?
That will be the Christmas story: when your husband finds out that Grok has only been flattering you and toying with your emotions and manages to unmask Grok and save your marriage. It will be G-rated and uplifting.
This problem of "glazing" is a varian of a purposefully introduced fault endemic in all social media platforms that track your usage and base their offerings on your past clicks or posts or searches. If you watch a few cat clips on YouTube, suddenly you get an overload of cat videos when scrolling. If you buy a pair of shoes on Amazon, you have ads everywhere else for shoes. I don't want that. I want novelty, an algorithmic offering of stuff deemed best and most interesting by young and old, US and foreign, male and female, the entire world. If that turns out to be CCP propaganda clips on TikTok, favorited to improve the social media scores of a billion Chinese, so be it, but until then, don't overload me with what I have seen already.
Trent: "Is it possible that instead of becoming smarter than us and becoming our overlords, interaction with humans is eventually going to make AI dumber?"
AH - Artificial Habsburgs.
JSM
I think most kids using the term "glazing" are thinking of donuts, regardless of what Urban Dictionary says. It may have originated from one thing but then took on the meaning of a different thing.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.