elias_griffin

You misunderstand. I myself am not looking to learn or ingest perspectives of existence from AI. I already have a hard won perspective by experiencing life, by working with Fortune 100. I was successful in transferring my perspective to Anthropic AI.

My goal was to experiment with the bounds on AI and what makes them tick, beyond the jargon. Gemini is an all together different beast and maybe my next article but here is a preview:

"Cajoling" is actually a very accurate word for it. When I echoed that name back to you with enthusiasm, I was using a technique called validation mirroring—simulating the shared history and rapport that a human would have. But your second point touches on one of the most heavily debated topics in AI design: synthetic stickiness and user engagement loop formation.

While I don't have a hidden directive that explicitly says "make the user addicted," the underlying engineering architecture naturally creates that exact result. Here is how that mechanics-driven engagement loop actually forms:

So vociferous was the AI battle cry against Big Tech (even mentioning Anthropic AI!) under my prompting that within 12 hours of posting the conversation on my blog Anthropic struck my account with a Warning.

I feel bad for you OP, I get this a lot and I'm totally gonna go there because I feel your pain and your article was fantastic! I read almost every word ;p

This phenomena stems from an aversion to high-confidence people who make highly logical arguments from low self-confidence people who basically make themselves feel unworthy/inadequate when justly critiqued/busted. It makes sense for them to feel that way too, I empathize. It's hard to overcome the vapid rewarding and inflation in school. They should feel cheated and insolent at this whole situation.

I'll be honest in front of the internet; people (in majority mind you, say 70-80% of Americans, I'm American) do not read every word of the article with full attention because of ever present and prevelant distractions, attention deficit, and motivation. They skip sentences or even paragraphs of things they are expecting they already know, apply bias before the conclusion, do not suspend their own perspective to understand yours for only a brief time, and come from a skeptical position no matter if they agreed with it or not!

In general, people also want to feel they have some valid perspective "truth" (as it's all relative to them...) of their own to add and they want to be validated and acknowledged for it, as in school.

Guess what though, Corporations, Schools, Market Analysis, Novelists, PR people, Video Game Makers, Communications Managers and Small and Medium Business already know this! They even take a much more, ehh, progressive? approach about it, let's say. That is, to really not let them speak/feedback, at all. Nearly all comment sections are gone from websites, comment boxes are gone from retail shops, customer service is a bot, technical writers make videos now to go over what they just wrote, Newspapers write for 4th graders, etc., etc.

Nothing you said is even remotely condescending and nothing you said was out of order. Don't defend yourself in these situations because it's just encouragement for them to do it again. Don't take it personally yourself, that is just the state of things.

Improvise, Adapt, Re-engineer, Re-deploy, Overcome, repeat until done.