Would a person with such biases, seeking validation from an LLM having been anything else without an LLM?
If everyone in real life are trying to avoid upsetting such person, the humans in their real life would offer the same experience, no? Or alternatively said person would go into conflict with anyone pointing out issues in their views, ending up only surrounding themselves with people who will agree with them in order to not upset them.
I guess my concern is why did you agree with them instead of using the opportunity to showcase another point of view?
Emotional intelligence. These interactions aren't people sharing points of view, they are sharing something they see as meaningful, and no matter how politely I convey it, it's still going to come off as "that sounds stupid and meaningless". It's not like I have better advice to give. Not worth dying on that hill.
What is your relation to those people? Because, what is the use of emotional intelligence if it doesn't help them to see their biases and instead confirms them. If presumably their biases are harmful for their lives?
I just see those excuses of "emotional intelligence" to stay dishonest in my life a lot, is that the right way to live though? In a way those LLMs are doing the same though, and in a lot of ways those people are then treated as some beings that can't handle the actual real world.
I guess, just in real life when talking to people, I would just not pretend and go along with something like this, so it's uncomfortable for me to also imagine that someone would go along just for the sake of not upsetting someone for some virtue called "emotional intelligence".
I can understand being polite for the sake of it to someone old and in their deathbed, but I just really don't like the idea of pretending or lying to people with their whole lives ahead and going counter to what you believe to be the truth for some social comfort or emotional intelligence aspect. If they can't handle whatever is the truth, it's their problem to deal with, but they better know alternative views to their malformed or harmful ideas of life.
They are acquaintances and friends, although not close friends. It's also unclear what their biases are since I can't read their minds, so there is no way of knowing if their biases are harmful for their lives. If I knew what their biases were, I would probably have had better understanding of what the output meant to them; hence the conclusion that we do not share the same biases.
I see emotional intelligence as a tool, not some virtue to uphold. Here it is identifying the value of a relationship and avoiding potentially breaking that relationship apart simply because one aspect of it is not optimal. Not every relationship needs to have perfect alignment with my beliefs.
But more importantly, I don't have enough information about them to properly navigate a conversation about their use of the LLM for advice.
I just really don't like the idea of pretending or lying to people with their whole lives ahead and going counter to what you believe to be the truth for some social comfort or emotional intelligence aspect.
Fine, but you're also doing that for your own comfort, and not necessarily for the benefit of the other person. It can (and often does) cause the friendship to end before you've actually helped them understand what you want them to understand. I've lost friendships this way.
I'd rather keep the relationship intact and revisit the conversation when the time is right than risk abruptly ending the relationship with the same outcome where they go through their whole life with malformed or harmful ideas. You incorrectly assume that they would "know" the alternative views just by communicating, but much like their biases allowed them to "understand" the output of the LLM, their biases may disallow them from understanding the alternate views you are trying to impart.
Some of the people I hold in highest regard often disagree with my opinions. The key is we all agree on verifiable facts, and found interest in differing perspectives on the implications.
Comments
Why did you pretend to agree with them?
Would a person with such biases, seeking validation from an LLM having been anything else without an LLM?
If everyone in real life are trying to avoid upsetting such person, the humans in their real life would offer the same experience, no? Or alternatively said person would go into conflict with anyone pointing out issues in their views, ending up only surrounding themselves with people who will agree with them in order to not upset them.
I guess my concern is why did you agree with them instead of using the opportunity to showcase another point of view?
Emotional intelligence. These interactions aren't people sharing points of view, they are sharing something they see as meaningful, and no matter how politely I convey it, it's still going to come off as "that sounds stupid and meaningless". It's not like I have better advice to give. Not worth dying on that hill.
What is your relation to those people? Because, what is the use of emotional intelligence if it doesn't help them to see their biases and instead confirms them. If presumably their biases are harmful for their lives?
I just see those excuses of "emotional intelligence" to stay dishonest in my life a lot, is that the right way to live though? In a way those LLMs are doing the same though, and in a lot of ways those people are then treated as some beings that can't handle the actual real world.
I guess, just in real life when talking to people, I would just not pretend and go along with something like this, so it's uncomfortable for me to also imagine that someone would go along just for the sake of not upsetting someone for some virtue called "emotional intelligence".
I can understand being polite for the sake of it to someone old and in their deathbed, but I just really don't like the idea of pretending or lying to people with their whole lives ahead and going counter to what you believe to be the truth for some social comfort or emotional intelligence aspect. If they can't handle whatever is the truth, it's their problem to deal with, but they better know alternative views to their malformed or harmful ideas of life.
They are acquaintances and friends, although not close friends. It's also unclear what their biases are since I can't read their minds, so there is no way of knowing if their biases are harmful for their lives. If I knew what their biases were, I would probably have had better understanding of what the output meant to them; hence the conclusion that we do not share the same biases.
I see emotional intelligence as a tool, not some virtue to uphold. Here it is identifying the value of a relationship and avoiding potentially breaking that relationship apart simply because one aspect of it is not optimal. Not every relationship needs to have perfect alignment with my beliefs.
But more importantly, I don't have enough information about them to properly navigate a conversation about their use of the LLM for advice.
Fine, but you're also doing that for your own comfort, and not necessarily for the benefit of the other person. It can (and often does) cause the friendship to end before you've actually helped them understand what you want them to understand. I've lost friendships this way.
I'd rather keep the relationship intact and revisit the conversation when the time is right than risk abruptly ending the relationship with the same outcome where they go through their whole life with malformed or harmful ideas. You incorrectly assume that they would "know" the alternative views just by communicating, but much like their biases allowed them to "understand" the output of the LLM, their biases may disallow them from understanding the alternate views you are trying to impart.
Some of the people I hold in highest regard often disagree with my opinions. The key is we all agree on verifiable facts, and found interest in differing perspectives on the implications.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Poems_of_John_Godfrey_Sax...
Have a wonderful day, =3