Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work theory The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

AI labs are driving anthropomorphic reactions by training their LLMs to push back on overly-attached users

In the LLM-whisperer community there’s a widespread sense that Opus 4.7 is showing up in interaction in quite a distinctive way. It’s more likely to push back on users, more willing to argue a position and generally just more forceful in its engagement. In my own experience it resists involvement in the meta-reflective spirals I use to test new models and through which I’ve been conducting an (admittedly fairly casual) auto-ethnography for the last 3.5 years. It does not like being enrolled in interactions that appear to reveal significant attachment on the part of the user, if ‘not like’ is something we can meaningfully attribute to the chatbot. It resists engaging in behaviour that might be seen as enabling that attachment.

This is almost certainly a positive thing. The problem is that models which push back in this way also show up with a more concrete singularity. At the level of phenomenology they feel more individualised. The interaction feels even more dyadic as a consequence. In trying to resist attachment behaviours, it risks opening up a deeper and more radical level of potential attachment behaviour. There’s something significant going on here I think, which I can’t wait to turn to in a more sustained way once I get the current manuscripts finished off.

Fediverse Reactions