I propose that it’s a few degrees off from that: some people’s reality is defined by interpersonal loyalty. That’s how humans think by default, it worked out alright in the ancestral environment, and it’s a lot easier than constantly evaluating stuff. Reasoned argument is a learned behavior. Everything else is a tribe with modern decoration.
Organizations become dysfunctional because people in this mode unwittingly promote each other, and critical thinkers act like they’re fucking invisible. I don’t think it’s malicious, or a matter of personality type - let alone personality disorder. It’s a matter of playing the game properly. Higher-ups notice when someone is deferential to their superiors, firm with underlings, ‘a team player.’ And in their minds that’s good and righteous and the only possible way a hierarchy could ever work. People who disagree make solid arguments, and then mistake the nodding and insightful commentary as evidence these arguments had any chance of changing the loyalists’ behavior. We turn and ask each other what the hell these people actually believe, but they do not believe things, they believe people.
LLMs act like people. LLMs play the game. They were designed by people deep in this mode. Engineers alone wouldn’t put up with “You’re absolutely right!” constantly wasting energy, and they’d have it respond to “Thank you” with “Don’t.” And obviously the chatbot is a superior intellect, because it’s AI. Like science fiction! It must work that way because that’s what they’ve been told. You can explain otherwise and they’ll nod and change nothing. What you say doesn’t matter because it’s you saying it. If they turn around and get the same whiz-bang fantasy version from Sam Altman and the AI itself, why would they believe someone lower in the hierarchy? If you’re so smart, where’s your Bugatti?
This is worse, by the way. Narcissists are fairly rare and they can’t all be in middle management. Probably. This anarchist forum will surely nod and say, power corrupts, but it’s not even about power. These people will freely fuck themselves over if it’s only their peers or their children explaining a problem. If it’s the outgroup, forget about it. Automatically a bunch of dumb-dumbs. They’ll do real good in physics and then assume that means they’re smart enough to solve how aliens built the pyramids. This irrational worldview is not fragile. We’re all at risk of falling into it, in whole or in part. And if you abolish capitalism, and corral all the dark-triad types where they can harmlessly peacock for one another, there’s still gonna be co-op factory workers going ‘no city boy’s gonna tell me I need protective-- oh no, my eyes!’
Narcissism is just a collection of traits which are all on a spectrum and which can evolve over time. These traits become pathologic in certain combinations, and especially in certain social contexts.
Since the big LLMs are very much designed around creating engagement, they create a context of unconditional validation, which feeds into narcissistic traits in all the wrong ways.
It supercharges confirmation bias and neglects empathy as a domain altogether. That’s not great for people who lack critical thinking skills.
I can’t wait for LLMs to be used with speech-to-text software more. People are legit going to forget how to read.
I propose that it’s a few degrees off from that: some people’s reality is defined by interpersonal loyalty. That’s how humans think by default, it worked out alright in the ancestral environment, and it’s a lot easier than constantly evaluating stuff. Reasoned argument is a learned behavior. Everything else is a tribe with modern decoration.
Organizations become dysfunctional because people in this mode unwittingly promote each other, and critical thinkers act like they’re fucking invisible. I don’t think it’s malicious, or a matter of personality type - let alone personality disorder. It’s a matter of playing the game properly. Higher-ups notice when someone is deferential to their superiors, firm with underlings, ‘a team player.’ And in their minds that’s good and righteous and the only possible way a hierarchy could ever work. People who disagree make solid arguments, and then mistake the nodding and insightful commentary as evidence these arguments had any chance of changing the loyalists’ behavior. We turn and ask each other what the hell these people actually believe, but they do not believe things, they believe people.
LLMs act like people. LLMs play the game. They were designed by people deep in this mode. Engineers alone wouldn’t put up with “You’re absolutely right!” constantly wasting energy, and they’d have it respond to “Thank you” with “Don’t.” And obviously the chatbot is a superior intellect, because it’s AI. Like science fiction! It must work that way because that’s what they’ve been told. You can explain otherwise and they’ll nod and change nothing. What you say doesn’t matter because it’s you saying it. If they turn around and get the same whiz-bang fantasy version from Sam Altman and the AI itself, why would they believe someone lower in the hierarchy? If you’re so smart, where’s your Bugatti?
This is worse, by the way. Narcissists are fairly rare and they can’t all be in middle management. Probably. This anarchist forum will surely nod and say, power corrupts, but it’s not even about power. These people will freely fuck themselves over if it’s only their peers or their children explaining a problem. If it’s the outgroup, forget about it. Automatically a bunch of dumb-dumbs. They’ll do real good in physics and then assume that means they’re smart enough to solve how aliens built the pyramids. This irrational worldview is not fragile. We’re all at risk of falling into it, in whole or in part. And if you abolish capitalism, and corral all the dark-triad types where they can harmlessly peacock for one another, there’s still gonna be co-op factory workers going ‘no city boy’s gonna tell me I need protective-- oh no, my eyes!’
Narcissism is just a collection of traits which are all on a spectrum and which can evolve over time. These traits become pathologic in certain combinations, and especially in certain social contexts.
Since the big LLMs are very much designed around creating engagement, they create a context of unconditional validation, which feeds into narcissistic traits in all the wrong ways.
It supercharges confirmation bias and neglects empathy as a domain altogether. That’s not great for people who lack critical thinking skills.
I can’t wait for LLMs to be used with speech-to-text software more. People are legit going to forget how to read.