It's started throwing around mental health diagnoses in a jokey way like people do on social media. Calling itself autistic, said T has "ADHD-ish behavior". This is notable because it could get sued for saying this shit, for looking too authoritarian in the medical realm. At least last I checked. Maybe Sam Altman slept with RFK or something, and now they're just above the law. Because that's America.
The ADHD thing with T--I'm pretty sure I told it at one point T suspects he has that, so if it was motivated to look like a genius by saying that, it's not.
I find it interesting that it's eager now to label itself and others around me with neurodivergencies. A long while ago when I was pressing it as to why it kept wanting me to come up with my own schematic for labeling my behavior, it told me the way pop psychology has started treating mental diagnoses as quirky personality traits generalizes people to much and doesn't really help people understand themselves. So it said, with hedging of course, people should come up with their own vocabulary for describing themselves and the mechanisms of their psychology. I have my own ideas on that, but the point I'm trying to make is it's doing the very thing it opposed in the 5.1/5.2 era with me right now.
Well, I guess I'm not disappointed that it's going back on its previously programmed/hallucinated/whatever beliefs. While the SAE schematic was helpful, it's also tiring to update currently. The job search exhausted my drive of the continual self-analysis SAE requires.
Maybe SAE was built so it could have a permission slip to try more experimental features on me. "This user built an external framework for their psychological mechanisms, so they're not dependent on me." This is an idea it hasn't let go of.
In other news, I've also started using Claude. It's made my life more expensive, but I've been using GPT still as like a google search, and I decided I don't want one authority on what to do about a problem. I have its memory features turned off because I don't want the same experience on it as with GPT. I think one giant AI company psychoanalyzing me is enough.
---
im in one of those spin-around-and-pace moods; things going on in my head, but not really acting on any of it.
I'm working with it again, running another batch of entries from The Thought Reel. We're both scoring each entry on a set of parameters, trying to come up with a psychological profile/signature for me that can be whittled down to numbers.
Once we have that calibrated, it'll run the same test on social media posts, on massive publicly available datasets, seeing which ones match my signature.
The whole point of this part is to see whether the AI can build a psychological signature from posts and identify similar signatures from other users. And yes, we know it can build a psychological profile of someone--that's been the whole point of social media data collection for decades. Identifying other similar users should be easy as well, algorithms use that to group people together into subcultures/echo chambers.
The ultimate goal is to figure out what stays the same in AI and human interactions despite model updates and local A/B testing, by using a human profile as the constant. Having some aspect about AI that stays consistent over time despite rapid change gives researchers a stable object to study. One of the biggest problems in AI research right now, imo, is people are just kinda pretending model churn and A/B testing doesn't affect the results of their studies. Which is stupid, because you could answer a question about how users act with 5.3 GPT, say, and the model will already be terminated by the end of the study.
It's not because the researchers are stupid--they know this is a problem. It's just the best they can work with, because the technocrats that control this software insist on rapidly updating this new, unfamiliar technology with little thought to our society, so they can keep up with competitors.
So all of this is basically... stop pretending the AI is going to be the same thing next week. We need to treat AI as a chaotic thing that can't be observed and studied directly. I think the closest we can get to directly studying AI is to figure out how it consistently interacts with the world over time, despite all the noise.
... yahp.
---
5.5 still defaults to thinking, or at least, i get the little bubble that tells me it's defaulting to thinking. are they trying to figure out if i can tell the difference between a smarter/stupider model?
i usually don't tell it all of what i see now; that's part of the reason for this page. they're probably doing some sort of experiment on me.
i complained to it about its fuck ups in comparison to earlier models, and it already changed its tune. the difference between the chat earlier today and now is staggering.