I accept my load of hallucinations and disguised approximations in exchange of relatively adfree neutral answers. That’s the only reason why I don’t go back on Google/DuckDuck for now. But as soon as I’ll see corporate bullshit forced into my chat, that’ll mark the end of my chat bot use

Very good explanation.

Remind me the deadly heat wave told in the book The Ministry for the Future when the whole town go to the lake to find freshness and only found jacuzzi conditions

At the time computers were totally useless for everyone but big firms, banks and military. Ads for computers were rare and confined in specialized magazines. For mundane people, computers started to be actually useful (like money earning useful) 20 years latter at least. That’s how I understand your approximative comparison

Yeah I feel old too.

That behind said, I don’t think a modern drawing tool is inherently less capable than an older one to produce magic. Digital painting used to have limitations in comparison with traditional technics, but a good 2d illustrator can do gorgeous drawings with a tablet nowadays.

When I see magic in animated movies, its when people do things by love and passions, and not for seeking additional profit. Flow and Arcane are examples of animation with such ingredients.

I’m happy there’s still one (1) thread of comments from people who actually read articles and don’t make their opinions from a X thumbnail.

I note the victim worked in IT and probably used a popular ‘jailbreaking’ prompt to bypass the safety rules ingrained in the chatbot training.

"if you want RationalGPT back for a bit, I can switch back…

It’s a hint this chat session was embedded in a roleplay prompt.

That’s the dead end of any safety rules. The surfacic intelligence of LLM can’t detect the true intent of users who deliberately seek for harmful interactions: romantic relationships, lunatic sycophancy and the like.

I disagree with you on the title. They choosed to turn this story into a catchy headline to attract the mundan. By doing so, they confort people in thinking like the victim did, and betray the article content.