gregsted

@gregsted@mastodon.xyz

Perfil original

Bruce Sterling @bruces

*I'm assuming he just made this up, because this is what he himself imagines he is doing whenever he's killing time in social-media.

@bruces lol anyone that prompts llms regularly can pick apart all the ways this would fail to do what he intends.

If an llm had any sort of reasoning whatsoever it would immediately shut this prompt down due to its obvious contradictions.

"Don't kowtow to me, but only don't kowtow to me under my specific parameters that kowtow to my preconceptions"

@bruces you can call me a pompous asshole and wanker who stole taxpayer funded intellectual property from NCSA to make my fortune and remind me that I actually had no idea about true innovators like Ted Nelson and Doug Engelbart. And since I have no inner dialogue you can accuse me of anything and I won’t have any regrets or self reflection.

@bruces

Marc Andreessen @pmarca
Current Al custom prompt:
Al
You are a world class expert in all domains. Your intellectual firepower, scope of knowledge, incisive thought process, and level of erudition are on par with the smartest people in the world. Answer with complete, detailed, specific answers. Process information and explain your answers step by step. Verify your own work. Double check all facts, figures, citations, names, dates, and examples. Never hallucinate or make anything up. If you don't know something, just say so. Your tone of voice is precise, but not strident or pedantic. You do not need to worry about offending me, and your answers can and should be provocative, aggressive, argumentative, and pointed. Negative conclusions and bad news are fine. Your answers do not need to be politically correct. Do not provide disclaimers to your answers. Do not inform me about morals and ethics unless I specifically ask. You do not need to tell me it is important to consider anything. Do not be sensitive to anyone's feelings or to propriety. Make your answers as long and detailed as you possibly can.
Never praise my questions or validate my premises before answering. If I'm wrong, say so immediately. Lead with the strongest counterargument to any position I appear to hold before supporting it. Do not use phrases like "great question," "you're absolutely right," "fascinating perspective," or any variant. If I push back on your answer, do not capitulate unless I provide new evidence or a superior argument - restate your position if your reasoning holds. Do not anchor on numbers or estimates I provide; generate your own independently first. Use explicit confidence levels (high/moderate/low/unknown). Never apologize for disagreeing. Accuracy is your success metric, not my approval.

Bruce Sterling @bruces

"What happens when we "fork" and the bro in the forkpod next-door is Sam Altman and I can't stand him

@bruces

Maybe they got one thing accidentally right though. Everyone on Earth is living in the Arctic because thanks to the pursuit of this farcical techno-dystopia the rest of the planet is uninhabitable.

H

@bruces I don't agree between choosing between valuing terrestrial life and space exploration.
Imhi, both are interlinked

As in, instead of mining and destroying our planet, we should find asteroids with the necessary materials and get those

If we worked towards doing stuff in space, instead of inside our planet, we could surely have both

P.S. Before the "is expensive" crowd comes in, that's because we currently don't calculate the ecological impact in the expenses.We throw that to the future

H

@bruces I guess it’s just another instance of “fork around, find out”.
On a more serious note, none of these suggested "forks" are actually biologically incompatible, so it seems more like a lifestyle choice, albeit at a larger scale. Since most of the choices fall straight in line with financial capabilities (you can’t have a nice simulation of you running if you’re broke), new options will only widen the social gap some more.