I also feel vaguely good about it, but I feel decisively bad about this suggestion!
I’ve been investigating LLM-induced psychosis cases, and in the process have spent dozens of hours reading through hundreds if not thousands of possible cases on reddit. And nothing has made me appreciate Said’s mode of communication (which I have a natural distaste towards) more than wading through all that sycophantic nonsense slop!
In particular, it has made it more clear to me what the epistemic function of disagreeableness is, and why getting rid of it completely would be very bad. (I’m distinguishing ‘disagreeableness’ here from ‘criticism’, which I believe can almost always be done in an agreeable way.) Not something I really would have disagreed with before (ha), but it helps me to see a visceral failure mode of my natural inclination to really drive the point home.
I also feel vaguely good about it, but I feel decisively bad about this suggestion!
I’ve been investigating LLM-induced psychosis cases, and in the process have spent dozens of hours reading through hundreds if not thousands of possible cases on reddit. And nothing has made me appreciate Said’s mode of communication (which I have a natural distaste towards) more than wading through all that sycophantic nonsense slop!
In particular, it has made it more clear to me what the epistemic function of disagreeableness is, and why getting rid of it completely would be very bad. (I’m distinguishing ‘disagreeableness’ here from ‘criticism’, which I believe can almost always be done in an agreeable way.) Not something I really would have disagreed with before (ha), but it helps me to see a visceral failure mode of my natural inclination to really drive the point home.
I think there’s a happy medium between these two bad extremes, and the vast majority of LWers sit in it generally.