Discussion

The Future of Everything is Lies, I Guess: Annoyances

tao_oat: https://archive.is/c2sBh

Leomuck: So basically more ways of trying to make people buy things, do things, think things than before? I feel like our whole world more and more circulates around manipulation and the absence of truth and discourse.Then again, I do think LLMs are an incredible technological achievement. The issue is not so much what they do or that they exist, but how they are utilized. Right now, they are utilized to further the class divide between rich and poor.Who are we to trust in the future? Not big companies, not the state, not LLMs. Time to organize around groups and collectives that we know we can trust and that we know have our wellbeing in mind.

LogicFailsMe: D^HLying is easy, it's comedy that's hard...

zer00eyz: Everything that is old is new again.Payment processing, is better than it was in 2000, but still not good.Micropayments: this is obnoxiously expensive to do.Discovery, and discoverability: again here we have better but not good solutions (and many of the ones that were once good are enshitified).Pricing: this is a problem everywhere, and frankly we need the law to change in a way that is pro consumer. Publishing prices, disclosure of fees, in both services and for payment processing (that 3 percent back from visa looks a lot less attractive when it's part of a 5 percent mark up).Customer service: well there are already companies promoting models where they cut you off and send you into a black hole (google is a prime example). Good customer service will become a differentiator, and maybe a "paid for" service as well.

smitty1e: So, providing actual customer service becomes a market differentiator?"Yes, we cost more, but your get what you pay for" can be a good play.

vyr: have worked closely with customer support teams, can confirm that the goal of any technical improvements that go in front of CS agents is to reduce ticket volume, and thus costs. of course they measure retention and satisfaction but ticket volume is always the big one. chatbots were big for this long before LLMs existed.a fun side effect is that CS is also an early warning system for companies, so when you make it harder to get through to a human, you start throwing out info on your users' pain points. of course this only matters if people have a choice about whether to use your product, so that's gotta be an upside for insurance companies, etc.

KronisLV: > ML models will hurt innocent people.Lots of blaming LLMs but I think the root cause lies elsewhere, I’m not even sure whether dismissing it as “capitalism” or “profit motives” would do it justice, because in general it feels more like the world that we live in lacks humanity.Even in a capitalist world, a company could take a stance and decide not to purposefully screw people over, but in the world that we live in instead they look for ways to better screw over people and extract more money from them. It doesn’t matter whether your customer support is handled by someone from India, a crappy telephone tree or some voice model, when the incentive is the same - to do the bare minimum for customer “support” (in practice, just getting you to fuck off). Same for handling insurance claims and “dynamic pricing” of things - it doesn’t matter whether it’s some proprietary algorithm or just an LLM making crap up when the goal is to screw you over.Blaming “AI” for all of this would be barking up the wrong tree (without that tech they’d just find other ways), though one can definitely acknowledge that this technology provides another convenient scapegoat, same as how you can lay employees off and just say cause it’s because of AI when in actuality it’s just greed and wanting to make your books look better.

duskdozer: A lot of this has been going on for a long time and I've been sensitive to it. LLMs may not be solely responsible but they're a massive escalation.

jfengel: In a capitalist world, the company that does decide to screw people over gets rich and the one that doesn't goes out of business.It would be great if people chose not to do business with the former, but many simply do not care. They may think only other people get screwed. They may not take the time to think about it, especially if the company spends a ton of money obfuscating their misbehavior. Quite a few actively defend the right of companies to screw them.Technology multiplies that like a lever. We weren't prepared for capitalism before LLMs and we're massively under-prepared now.

tgsovlerkhgsel: Regarding companies trying to block any contact with customer service and adding endless AI hurdles: In some countries, having a reachable means of contact is legally required. Is there a NOYB-style organization that specializes in enforcing this right (suing companies on behalf of consumers)?For the "bureaucracy has royally fucked up and doesn't want to fix it", if it is something that can be fixed with money and isn't time sensitive (e.g. you need a refund rather than get the airline to actually provide you the ticket you already paid for and want to fly this weekend): In countries that have effective small claims courts, these can be a surprisingly convenient (less hassle than the "talk to the bot" wall of the company!) to resolve this kind of issue.I hope that these resolution methods become more common - I think the tools to fight enshittification often already exist, we just don't use them enough. A welcome side effect would, of course, be that this would impose a real cost on the enshittifiers, creating an incentive to provide proper support.

0xbadcafebee: This is doomerism. Yes, everything will get worse. But everything will also get better. Such is progress. (for every one of these examples of annoyances, I can think of two ways to use AI to get around the annoyance. not clever programmer things, but things an average person who learns to use Codex or Claude Desktop to operate their desktop will know)Most of these annoyances are also things that existed before AI, and will continue to exist after, because consumerist capitalism. The good little obedient consumers get abused because they don't stand up for themselves. Customer service is an enfuriating maze? Yeah, because you voted with your dollars (and political indifference) to allow companies to make customer service (the thing you pay for) worse. We bring these problems on ourselves. It's pointless to complain if you aren't willing to do anything to change it. (And if you think you can't change it, there's other nations to look at, as well as the fact that you live in a democracy - for now - unlike the rest of the world)Hell, we already have companies whose sole purpose is to manage your subscriptions for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself. You could look at this and say, man, the world is terrible! Or you could look at this and say, man, how great is my life that I can not only subscribe to a lot of things without going bankrupt, but I have extra cash left over to pay a company to manage my subscriptions?Don't let the hedonic treadmill and complacency trick you into A) accepting a worse life, or B) convincing yourself your life is bad when it's actually better than most people's.

duskdozer: >(for every one of these examples of annoyances, I can think of two ways to use AI to get around the annoyance. not clever programmer things, but things an average person who learns to use Codex or Claude Desktop to operate their desktop will know)As the author said:>I suspect that like the job market, everyone will wind up paying massive “AI” companies to manage the drudgery they created.

sassymuffinz: Self inflating nipple shaped balloons that generate their own lift without any helium would be an incredible achievement but that doesn't mean it's useful beyond being novel. Chatbots are ultimately just predictive text on steroids, and only complete fools would base their business, or entire economy around it.

phlummox: ... is there any reason why I shouldn't be visiting Aphyr's site directly?

DareTheDev: Blocked in the UK. “Online safety act”

petermcneeley: > Since LLMs are unpredictable and vulnerable to injection attacks, customer service machines must also have limited powerHaha yes. I interacted with a bank one. It was like press 5 for mortgages but with a text to speech front end.At the end of the day the LLM can be tricked into doing anything.

Scholmo: Don't agree with this.LLM when it came out, was perfect as an interface between a system and a normal human.So many people call customer support for issues they could in theory fix themselves. If that LLM system can understand me well enough, its an okay interface.In worst case you have to escalate anyway. My mum actually told me that she talked to some AI.And yes normal systems are also not correct often enough. With AI/LLM software will get cheaper which should incresase quality overall.I dont think ai/llm in this case will change anything.Relevant change will happen due to the fact that humans can be replaced by AI/LLMs. It was not even imaginable a few years back how a good ai system would even look like. Translaters lost their jobs, basic arists lost their jobs. Small contracts for basic things are gone. The restaurant poster no one cares? AI. The website translation for some small business? no one cares.

GavinAnderegg: Is this something you're seeing personally? If so, how do you know it's because of the Online Safety Act? This is a personal blog and it doesn't seem to have any adult content that I can find. The homepage of the site isn't blocked when I check it here: https://www.blocked.org.uk/check

jerf: I don't need to conduct 1000 transactions per day. I don't forsee a world in which it will be some sort of fatal inconvenience to need to approve all purchases. I certainly don't plan on ever just handing over my credit card to an LLM, due to its fundamental architectural issues with injection, and I still don't anticipate handing it over to any future AI architecture anytime soon because I struggle to imagine what benefits could possibly be worth the risk of taking down such a basic, cheap barrier.All that stuff about support, though, inevitable.

ToucanLoucan: Agreed. My only real complaint with this article is it frames needing to argue with a machine as though this is a new, freshly annoying thing. I already do this constantly.Every time I call the Costco pharmacy, I just hit 0 immediately because: Phone. Trees. Suck. They have always sucked, it's just an awful, grindingly slow way to accomplish ANYTHING, and it's so, so much easier to, when I need help, get a person on the line who can figure out what's gone wrong and sort it.The only people benefiting from cutting that down are the scum class (combo of shareholders and executives) and who's shocked, really. Everything is being ruined nearly at all times to benefit the scum class.

kevg123: I sent the entire series by Aphyr [1] to some friends. Two of them, independently, responded with, "TLDR, can you give a summary?"I chat with these friends a lot but I rarely send articles that I suggest they read and that I think are profound, so I expected them to read it. These are smart people that have a history of reading lots of books.They are both huge AI proponents now and use AI for nearly everything now. Debates on various topics with them used to be rich; now, they're shallow and they just send me AI summaries of points they're clearly just predisposed to. Their attention spans are dwindling.[1] https://aphyr.com/data/posts/411/the-future-of-everything-is...

groundzeros2015: > The issue is not so much what they do or that they exist, but how they are utilizedThis is exactly how we got here though. Technology is not passive. It changes incentives, procedures, ideas and shapes the world. If we don't structurally limit what and how it's used, then we are not in control, no matter what are choices personally are.

Scholmo: It could also lead to a massive crash of capitalism and reevaluation of how our society functions.It could lead to significant progress in every single research area.I'm at least very impressed about the amount of open models and that it doesn't hold up that the gap between public and private diverges massivly. Public is probably one year behind.

davidclark: >LLM when it came out, was perfect as an interface between a system and a normal human.Statements like this make me feel like I live in a different universe with a different implementation of LLMs than other internet commenters.

add-sub-mul-div: You're on a forum with a disproportionate number of people who are trying to profit from AI and have an interest in promoting that it's a worthwhile time and resource investment. It is a different universe than other places outside this bubble.And it's a one day old account.

Scholmo: You might just overhype this blog.I read one of his last week? and didn't like it that much. I read this one despite it because its quite high on hn for whatever reason.I don't think everything is lies and i don't like how he thinks a LLM is just some bullshit machine.Its also waaaay to early to even understand were this is going. We as humans have never had that much compute and used it this particular way. It could literlay be the road to a utopia or dystopia. But its very crazy to experience it.His article series feels so negative and dismissive, that i'm not taking anything from it.There is so much more research, money and compute behind this AI topic right now, every week or two weeks something relevant better/new comes out of this. From 2d, 3d models, new LLM versions, smaller LLms, faster inferencing (Nvidias Nemotron), we don't know how this will continue.And the weird thing is that he clearly knows plenty about LLMs but it feels so negative dismissive, hard to put a finger to it.

apsurd: maybe it means they were never really as smart as you thought?Not meant to be snarky. It's been two decades now since my first wide-eyed entry into the workforce, moving for new opportunities, meeting new people. it's been great. There's a lot of smart people out there. I also realize that many people I seen as smart had more access to more content then i did. i still appreciated their sharing , it was enlightening to me. But after 20 years, I think back and it's literally quoting things from smart youtube videos. and regurgitating the latest thought leaders.We all do this, but like you, what's meaningful to me is the chewing, the dissection and synthesis. coming together to share different perspectives and so on. i've had those friends too! it's just not 1:1

skrebbel: Friends don’t send friends AI summaries

Scholmo: Do you want to add any argument so we can discuss this?I mean, did you not write with ChatGPT and were surprised how well it response?I'm schocked how well i can talk to an AI through some app like Gemini or ChatGTP. A few years ago i couldn't imagine building such a generic system which such high quality of understanding.I was playing around with dragon naturally speaking and similiar dictation tools 10 years ago and it was horrible. And that software is expensive.If you look how normal people use a computer, they are slow just because they don't understand basic drag and drop. Or they are unable to just create some java or php script to convert some data or clean up some data. I would just write a php script reading some csv file and converting stuff around and was faster than everyone around me.Tool calling is bonkers.And i tried to break GPT-3, i can literaly write an english sentence and just dropin german words, it was already that good.Its often enough shitty in doing exactly what i want, but the quality is massive to everything we had before. Massive.

Myrmornis: I read the first couple of posts in the series. I found it disappointing to hear someone so knowledgable and thoughtful struggle to acknowledge how good LLMs have become at coding tasks. Although, I suppose we all know at this point that in any sizeable engineering org, there are always a few individuals whose personalities prevent them from acknowledging this, and hinder them from interacting effectively with the models. The essay is full of criticism of LLMs, and in a couple of places the author distances himself, as if he himself isn't using them ("some people I respect tell me that..."). Almost completely lacking was honest acknowledgement of the extent to which they are successfully completing useful tasks today.

agentultra: To lie requires recognition of the truth and an intention to deceive. LLM’s don’t have such abilities. They are systems that generate plausible sequences of symbols based on training inputs, alignments, reinforcement, and inference. These systems don’t know or care what truth is and therefore cannot lie.It’s already bad. I’m not looking forward to the future. These systems are terrible. It’s a future without people that they want for some reason. I’d rather deal with people incompetent, tired, annoyed people than an LLM.

steveklabnik: https://aphyr.com/posts/395-geoblocking-multiple-localities-...

GavinAnderegg: Thanks for this! Seems like a bold stance… but the Online Safety Act also seems like a poor piece of legislation.

fandorin: „Agentic commerce means handing your credit card to a Large Language Model” - this is simply not true. LLMs/Agents will never get any credit/debit card details, they will be just an interface.

hn92726819: Millions of users, and you think exactly zero of them will hand over their credit card info?

fn-mote: > My mum actually told me that she talked to some AI.You have no argument here. Make an argument then we can talk. Right now it’s going in circles.

embedding-shape: Full quote:> People are very excited about “agentic commerce”. Agentic commerce means handing your credit card to a Large Language Model, giving it access to the Internet, telling it to buy something, and calling it in a loop until something exciting happens.I think you're confusing this for the other side of things. The article talks about how some people already use OpenClaw and the variations, give them access to bunch of stuff including cards to purchase things (sometimes virtual and limited cards), I think that's what the article talks about when they say "agentic commerce".Obviously a intentional simplification in the language the author uses, but I think it gets the point across at least.

fn-mote: Ill-thought out logic.The company that deployed the LLM is lying to you. The people who made that decision are the ones who are culpable.We both agree that it’s terrible.I think it’s important to have an enforcement mechanism to force companies to do what they are responsible for doing. An Anti-Kafka Law, so to speak.

apsurd: The author uses a lot of words and references to make critical conclusions that they do disclaim aren't expert.Rather than dismissive, I see it as effort intensive. The conclusions can be negative, but they've spawned so much discussion which i think is great.

bdangubic: my wife is one, so definitely not zero (she uses cards from privacy.com so there’s that…)

gdulli: At least phone trees are deterministic and there's still (usually) an option to get to a person for matters that aren't covered by the multiple choice options. Talking to AI is a much worse experience and the hope of the industry is that there won't need to be a human as a fallback anymore because (they believe) the AI is intelligent enough to handle anything.

SpicyLemonZest: I'm surprised to find so many people who consider human-based customer support a good experience. I wasted an hour on the phone last month with a series of polite support agents who I'm sure were wonderful people in their personal lives. They kept saying they'd like to try one more thing, making me wait 5 minutes (just short enough that I can't get anything done in the interim!), and then asking for one more pointless permutation of the workflow that did not work because their website was not showing me a button the support scripts said should be there. Talking to an LLM would have let me realize a lot faster that we weren't getting anywhere.

Loughla: Can I not shop for other insurance companies? I specifically chose my provider because I know there's an office I can call to talk to my agent or his secretary. The moment I have to interact with a chatbot, I take my business to someone else.

ufocia: AI on AI warfare

rtgfhyuj: you're part of the scum class btw (we all hold shares)

LogicFailsMe: Local models and powerful consumer HW and an informed populace that doesn't hate STEM, but that's not good for the shareholder value so you get expensive everything everywhere all at once instead.

kevg123: I wasn't even hyping it though. I shared it among friends to spark discussion. Sure, there's some hyperbole, but I found it thought provoking.

layer8: I wouldn’t necessarily read a lengthy blog post either just because some friend recommended it to me, and conversely I wouldn’t expect a friend to read it if I was recommending it. There needs to be some additional incentive and/or interest.Also, I’m reading this comment thread instead of TFA because I didn’t find the previous part I read that great. And I’m not an AI proponent, more of an AI skeptic.

api: A major problem is that if we structurally limit what technologies do, we are still not in control. Now whoever we empowered to control and limit the technology is in control. Who keeps them accountable?You’ll probably get one of three outcomes: regulatory capture by monopolies, self dealing by bureaucrats to enrich themselves or gain power, or regulatory capture by ideological luddites who halt progress.

Hoasi: The erosion and further diffusion of responsibility is the trend that worries me the most, since it’s already how all mid-size organisations, businesses and institutions alike, operate by design, and LLMs are likely to make that much worse.

bitexploder: Just need your own LLMs to exhaust them. The future seems like it will be owned by whoever can automate with LLMs in whatever problem domain there is.My agent will be in touch with yours, I guess.

THEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST NEVER MAKE A MANAGEMENT DECISION

Lerc: A COMPUTER CAN NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLETHEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST NEVER MAKE A MANAGEMENT DECISION—IBM internal training, 1979It took me a while to realise that the premise is saying the same thing as the reason why we have so many "Computer says no" experiences today.The conclusion only follows if you want someone to be accountable.If you want to avoid being accountable, computers should make all management decisions. This has nothing to do with AI other than it provides another mechanism to do that.People saying "I'd love to help you but the computer won't let me do that" has been happening for years now.Websites develop abusive patterns because A/B testing lets a process decide based on the goal you want, It doesn't measure the repercussions so you have made no decision to allow them.Management read it asA COMPUTER CAN NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLETHEREFORE THERE CAN BE NO LIABILITY IF COMPUTERS MAKE ALL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS