> He took out his phone, opened ChatGPT, and asked for restaurant suggestions. Why get close to someone who outsources decisions, including the fun ones like picking where to eat? If someone is so lazy they’ll hit up ChatGPT to plan a first date, imagine how little effort they’ll spend six months in.
Do they have a similar reaction to searching "restaurants near here" in a maps app? Practically any time I go out to eat I'm either going to one or two favorite places, or I'm looking on the internet where something gives me a list of possibilities.
It's not like I've memorized every local restaurant, so looking online for recommendations online is a way to learn about new places.
>> It's not like I've memorized every local restaurant, so looking online for recommendations online is a way to learn about new places.
But surely you have one or two favorite places right? What's wrong with naming one of them and seeing the other person is down for that? Nothing. What are you trying to optimize by getting a list of places from the internet? Is that an attempt to find something you think your date will approve of?
Tip: Most women actually like men who are somewhat assertive and have a mind of their own.
And yet the guy took initiative to try find a place at least, and she's criticising about how exactly he went about it? What a weird value call to make right there.
It's breakfast. Eggs, pancakes, breakfast meat, coffee, juice. It might say more about the offended person if they need specific breakfast guardrails. The other person may have accidently filtered out a potentially life-changing disaster.
There are lousy and lazy ways to use LLMs. There are also enlightening and powerful ways. Find someone curious who will explore them. Don't date people who habitually fight anything new.
"Habitually fighting anything new" is nonpolitical conservatism. It's not my stance but it's a pretty valid one, long recognized. There is social value in having people and groups who reject all changes regardless of their apparent merit or sophistication. You can't trick or swindle them, they can't be fooled or persuaded. It provides a counter to the incentives pushing us to change too fast, or without understanding enough of the possible consequences of broad social/technological changes.
I think a lot of the problems we have now is an unbalance on this, an insufficiently strong conservative force. "Conservative" political movements stopped filling this role a couple generations ago in favor of a sort of radical revanchism. They want to change everything too, just in a different way.
People who fight every change will always lose. But they are still valuable to us.
Yeah, it's a case of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of good". The conservative stance is happy with the status quo. The progressive stance isn't. We probably need a bit of both. Finding the right balance being key.
Honestly I don't think that's a valid stance to have ("habitually fighting anything new", not your view), to reject anything new entirely based on habit or principle.
It means you don't have a reason for rejecting the thing in question. Just crossing your arms with scowl and pretending things were better in years of yore.
Having a reason why you think the thing is bad, and should not be accepted is the better position to have.
To put another way, contrarianism is a survival adaptation for humans.
There are some options that are clearly 99% superior than other options. But that 1% happens enough to create an extinction event for humanity if everyone relies on it.
People are going to oppose good ideas from their very core for no discernable rhyme or reason. But at the same time, it's not necessarily irrational - our genetics are hardcoded to hedge collectively in weird ways.
Weird how you let this news story pop up on your screen so indolently, instead of fetching your newspaper from the front porch. You’re abandoning your agency! /s
I don’t mean to say that we should outsource our thoughts to LLMs. In this case it’s clear that even if they had just searched “places for xyz” on maps, it would’ve been just as bad - what they wanted was effort, shopping around + research with pros, cons, and discussions, not just “not an LLM”. Valid criticism!
While I am not a fan of the current LLM's and I consider myself an independent thinker I would also not be interested in someone shallow enough to care about it that much. She's probably never had a long term relationship and I do not envy anyone that ends up with her.
I think everybody uses clues as warning sign. I can safely say that heavy vocal[1] chatGPT users tend to be of the very boring type from my own statistics. Emphasis on heavy AND vocal.
[1] by that I mean those that keep saying everyone around them they ask chatGPT or you should ask chatGPT for whatever is the subject of the conversation.
I’m not sure that is a clue so much as actual boring behavior.
I think using shortcuts as a warning sign is okay but the author here uses it as a hard filter. She lacks curiosity. She doesn’t ask the groom why he chose that venue. She didn’t ask how he used ChatGPT.
She just cared that he heard about it from ChatGPT rather than what… from an ad in a wedding magazine? A google search? Asking friends? Hiring a planner? That lack of curiosity makes her look like a crap journalist and drives her delusional shortcut, probably to her own detriment.
The author doesn't seem to understand how much "intelligent thinking" is used in all the other apps she undoubtedly uses. Her maps app decides the best route and I'm sure she blindly follows it. That is outsourcing the decision on what roads to take. Skyscanner decides what flights to take. Google's Restaurants near me is similar. A lot of what we read, including her article, come to use through algorithms, not significantly different from an LLM. If you read anything from FB/Insta etc., you have outsourced what will come next in your feed.
This is an author who simply does not understand how people actually use LLMs. She thinks it is a recommendation engine because her only use of it was to type Google searches into it. The chat interface encourages this sort of short question so I cannot really blame people who don't know you can enter enter tens of thousands of words.
I have colleagues who use it like this, and one who has proudly never used it at all. I politely congratulate him on this when he brings it up because I know it is very important to him for whatever reason, but it is meaningless, like someone proudly saying they haven't used Google Maps. He is apparently the only person I know who the author could date, and his ego as a lover of writing is so important to him that he eschews technology to protect himself.
I can understand what she's saying. Using ChatGPT produces outcomes that are so mid and basic. Just average. I'd want to date someone more interesting than that.
I mean it "depends on the query". I used LLMs for vacation planning and with the right queries you get some really non-mid suggestions.
"Find the most interesting, quirky, or just plain unusual attractions that locals are pleasantly surprised by, searching using {local language}"
The models have complex behavior surfaces and when they interact with external data, the dynamics pliable. You can get very much non-basic stuff for whatever you want.
I just tried this exact search and it made where I live (Zurich) sound quite boring. :) I wouldn't bring visitors to those recommended places.
But anyway, the article was about dating and I'd hope whomever I was dating had enough experiences to have their own opinions about at a minimum a cafe for breakfast.
"A good friend recently told me that she spent a night with a man, and in the morning suggested they get breakfast together. He took out his phone, opened ChatGPT, and asked for restaurant suggestions. Why get close to someone who outsources decisions, including the fun ones like picking where to eat?"
Same logic applies to using Google, I guess? Or any mapping app? How about Yelp?
> Same logic applies to using Google, I guess? Or any mapping app? How about Yelp?
Not necessarily. The same logic would apply if you were just robotically using Google user ratings (e.g. "this is nearby and it has 5 stars, lets go there"), but it wouldn't if you looked through the results and used some taste, judgement, and experience.
There seems to be this assumption that if you ask AI for input, somehow you've turned into a slave that isn't capable of critiquing its response and integrating it into a larger decision-making process.
Why do people make that assumption? That would be the dumbest possible way to use AI.
Yeah, I didn’t really get that particular example. That seems functionally equivalent to a Google search. There is still a decision being made. You don’t have to go to the restaurant just because the AI suggests it.
I am familiar with both of those, and I sometimes ask ChatGPT because I am curious what it will come up with. I am curious to see if it comes up with something surprising or unexpected.
Perhaps the man in question is a thoughtful and curious person who was utilizing all of the resources available to him to provide a great experience to someone he cared about.
I often miss certain things that people consider important due to the humanity behind it, so this may be one of those cases (although things like art and I definitely do see that for) - but this feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me.
If I went on a few dates with someone and was really having a great time, but they told me that all their planning and conversation pieces were from a gen AI platform, I absolutely wouldn't like that. If they used it to audit some code to check for any performance considerations though? Those are so different, at least to me.
This quote:
> A good friend recently told me that she spent a night with a man, and in the morning suggested they get breakfast together. He took out his phone, opened ChatGPT, and asked for restaurant suggestions. Why get close to someone who outsources decisions, including the fun ones like picking where to eat?
Is one I find fair. There is some humanity to choosing some place to eat with another human. It also doesn't feel crazy to me to outsource the gathering and ranking to ChatGPT, though.
Then a lot of the article banks on "societal harm":
> OK, so ChatGPT helps you write your grocery list. Does your individual convenience outweigh the societal harm it can cause?
With some of the things that the article points out to, like water and power usage, I can also see the argument there. But then you can point to so many other things with similar arguments. A classic being "you're using an iPhone right now, don't you know how those are made".
This quote also feels along these lines to me:
> Pereira thinks that using ChatGPT “shows such a laziness”.
>
>“It’s like you can’t think for yourself, and you have to rely on an app for that,” she said.
But we all use Google and a million other services that "remove thinking". This just feels like an additional step (depending on the case, as mentioned above).
I have no idea where to stand on any of this. There's so much to consider and I feel like I can only find one side or the other online to read about. No one with a middle ground that makes sense (that I've stumbled upon).
That said, I do think there's a huge difference between having it draft your love letters for you and having it tell you how to best treat a cut you got on your finger.
> Over the past few months, as warnings of an impending AI-induced doomsday have dominated my news feed and party conversations, I’ve come up with a new one. I will not date someone who uses ChatGPT.
It's fairly telling that the people who hold these strong opinions think of themselves as strong independent thinkers but are slavishly devoted to the opinions of an algorithm.
I think there are a lot of decent reasons to be skeptical of AI. But this doesn't read like someone who is thoughtfully cautious and has concerns over actual issues with LLMs - this reads like someone in the 50s reading about microwaves and committing to never own one.
> I just cannot imagine forming a deep, lasting connection with someone who regularly interacts with a technology that’s kneecapping our collective attention spans
I wonder if she has such strong opinions on social media and short video content.
> I probably won’t find what I value in someone who thinks “productivity” means asking an app to summarize a movie plot so they don’t have to waste their time, you know, watching it.
Reasonable, but it would be very foolish to assume that everyone that uses LLMs uses it in such a stupid way. Everyone is free to have their own opinion, and my opinion is that the author didn't even try to go deep into the subject, just feeling the ick and reasoning it later.
ChatGPT is not a bad thing for dating. One friend of mine puts his messages in it and gets feed back. He claims it has really helped him correct his behavior.
Newspapers are really nailing these GenAI ragebait pieces.
> We know that the energy-intensive tech drains our water supply and hikes electricity bills.
Before GenAI, there was Google, AWS, Facebook, not to mention Netflix and friends. A single streaming episode probably uses more resources all told than reasonable ChatGPT use over a month.
> It is sold as a placebo for human connection; lonely, disconnected people finding companionship or even falling in love with code is not as much a sci-fi plot point as it is just the way things go now.
Anything/everything possible is sold as a placebo for human connection because loneliness is a powerful human motivator (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc. etc.) Before that: TV.
> The megarich tech bros in charge of all this think in terms of profit first and people second.
Most profitable corps think about profit, yes. The idea is that they can't profit unless people get something good out of it. If they can profit without people getting something good, it's a failure in the system, so the correct target is market breakdown: bad regulation, unbroken monopolies, fraud, etc.
> OK, so ChatGPT helps you write your grocery list. Does your individual convenience outweigh the societal harm it can cause?
> He took out his phone, opened ChatGPT, and asked for restaurant suggestions. Why get close to someone who outsources decisions, including the fun ones like picking where to eat? If someone is so lazy they’ll hit up ChatGPT to plan a first date, imagine how little effort they’ll spend six months in.
Do they have a similar reaction to searching "restaurants near here" in a maps app? Practically any time I go out to eat I'm either going to one or two favorite places, or I'm looking on the internet where something gives me a list of possibilities.
It's not like I've memorized every local restaurant, so looking online for recommendations online is a way to learn about new places.
>> It's not like I've memorized every local restaurant, so looking online for recommendations online is a way to learn about new places.
But surely you have one or two favorite places right? What's wrong with naming one of them and seeing the other person is down for that? Nothing. What are you trying to optimize by getting a list of places from the internet? Is that an attempt to find something you think your date will approve of?
Tip: Most women actually like men who are somewhat assertive and have a mind of their own.
Honestly, my favorite places aren't the place I'd want to take a first date. They're casual and cheap and wouldn't convey that I was trying very hard.
And yet the guy took initiative to try find a place at least, and she's criticising about how exactly he went about it? What a weird value call to make right there.
i mean it sounds like he started asking chatgpt before even asking the other person what they'd like...
In the initial exchange from the article the author states to the groom "the Venue is perfect!" to which the groom replies "I found it with ChatGPT."
To suddenly go from "this is perfect" to "ick" is a problem with being too judgmental and not self-regulating.
I mean... _pikachu face_
It's breakfast. Eggs, pancakes, breakfast meat, coffee, juice. It might say more about the offended person if they need specific breakfast guardrails. The other person may have accidently filtered out a potentially life-changing disaster.
When someone asks ChatGPT for restaurant suggestions, it should reply “Do I look like Google Maps to you?” or perhaps “Can I Yelp you with something?”
This feels so much like 90s Wikipedia criticism.
There are lousy and lazy ways to use LLMs. There are also enlightening and powerful ways. Find someone curious who will explore them. Don't date people who habitually fight anything new.
> This feels so much like 90s Wikipedia criticism.
Wikipedia didn't start until 2001. There was no 90s Wikipedia criticism. It didn't exist.
"Habitually fighting anything new" is nonpolitical conservatism. It's not my stance but it's a pretty valid one, long recognized. There is social value in having people and groups who reject all changes regardless of their apparent merit or sophistication. You can't trick or swindle them, they can't be fooled or persuaded. It provides a counter to the incentives pushing us to change too fast, or without understanding enough of the possible consequences of broad social/technological changes.
I think a lot of the problems we have now is an unbalance on this, an insufficiently strong conservative force. "Conservative" political movements stopped filling this role a couple generations ago in favor of a sort of radical revanchism. They want to change everything too, just in a different way.
People who fight every change will always lose. But they are still valuable to us.
Yeah, it's a case of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of good". The conservative stance is happy with the status quo. The progressive stance isn't. We probably need a bit of both. Finding the right balance being key.
Honestly I don't think that's a valid stance to have ("habitually fighting anything new", not your view), to reject anything new entirely based on habit or principle.
It means you don't have a reason for rejecting the thing in question. Just crossing your arms with scowl and pretending things were better in years of yore.
Having a reason why you think the thing is bad, and should not be accepted is the better position to have.
To put another way, contrarianism is a survival adaptation for humans.
There are some options that are clearly 99% superior than other options. But that 1% happens enough to create an extinction event for humanity if everyone relies on it.
People are going to oppose good ideas from their very core for no discernable rhyme or reason. But at the same time, it's not necessarily irrational - our genetics are hardcoded to hedge collectively in weird ways.
Don’t date people who abandon their own agency.
Weird how you let this news story pop up on your screen so indolently, instead of fetching your newspaper from the front porch. You’re abandoning your agency! /s
I don’t mean to say that we should outsource our thoughts to LLMs. In this case it’s clear that even if they had just searched “places for xyz” on maps, it would’ve been just as bad - what they wanted was effort, shopping around + research with pros, cons, and discussions, not just “not an LLM”. Valid criticism!
> Don't date people who habitually fight anything new.
Also, avoid dating people who assume that if you want to avoid the influence of genAI you "habitually fight anything new".
While I am not a fan of the current LLM's and I consider myself an independent thinker I would also not be interested in someone shallow enough to care about it that much. She's probably never had a long term relationship and I do not envy anyone that ends up with her.
I think everybody uses clues as warning sign. I can safely say that heavy vocal[1] chatGPT users tend to be of the very boring type from my own statistics. Emphasis on heavy AND vocal.
[1] by that I mean those that keep saying everyone around them they ask chatGPT or you should ask chatGPT for whatever is the subject of the conversation.
I’m not sure that is a clue so much as actual boring behavior.
I think using shortcuts as a warning sign is okay but the author here uses it as a hard filter. She lacks curiosity. She doesn’t ask the groom why he chose that venue. She didn’t ask how he used ChatGPT. She just cared that he heard about it from ChatGPT rather than what… from an ad in a wedding magazine? A google search? Asking friends? Hiring a planner? That lack of curiosity makes her look like a crap journalist and drives her delusional shortcut, probably to her own detriment.
The author doesn't seem to understand how much "intelligent thinking" is used in all the other apps she undoubtedly uses. Her maps app decides the best route and I'm sure she blindly follows it. That is outsourcing the decision on what roads to take. Skyscanner decides what flights to take. Google's Restaurants near me is similar. A lot of what we read, including her article, come to use through algorithms, not significantly different from an LLM. If you read anything from FB/Insta etc., you have outsourced what will come next in your feed.
This is an author who simply does not understand how people actually use LLMs. She thinks it is a recommendation engine because her only use of it was to type Google searches into it. The chat interface encourages this sort of short question so I cannot really blame people who don't know you can enter enter tens of thousands of words.
I have colleagues who use it like this, and one who has proudly never used it at all. I politely congratulate him on this when he brings it up because I know it is very important to him for whatever reason, but it is meaningless, like someone proudly saying they haven't used Google Maps. He is apparently the only person I know who the author could date, and his ego as a lover of writing is so important to him that he eschews technology to protect himself.
I can understand what she's saying. Using ChatGPT produces outcomes that are so mid and basic. Just average. I'd want to date someone more interesting than that.
I mean it "depends on the query". I used LLMs for vacation planning and with the right queries you get some really non-mid suggestions.
"Find the most interesting, quirky, or just plain unusual attractions that locals are pleasantly surprised by, searching using {local language}"
The models have complex behavior surfaces and when they interact with external data, the dynamics pliable. You can get very much non-basic stuff for whatever you want.
I just tried this exact search and it made where I live (Zurich) sound quite boring. :) I wouldn't bring visitors to those recommended places.
But anyway, the article was about dating and I'd hope whomever I was dating had enough experiences to have their own opinions about at a minimum a cafe for breakfast.
She sounds like someone that has too many good options and needs to invent things to be upset about
"A good friend recently told me that she spent a night with a man, and in the morning suggested they get breakfast together. He took out his phone, opened ChatGPT, and asked for restaurant suggestions. Why get close to someone who outsources decisions, including the fun ones like picking where to eat?"
Same logic applies to using Google, I guess? Or any mapping app? How about Yelp?
> Same logic applies to using Google, I guess? Or any mapping app? How about Yelp?
Not necessarily. The same logic would apply if you were just robotically using Google user ratings (e.g. "this is nearby and it has 5 stars, lets go there"), but it wouldn't if you looked through the results and used some taste, judgement, and experience.
There seems to be this assumption that if you ask AI for input, somehow you've turned into a slave that isn't capable of critiquing its response and integrating it into a larger decision-making process.
Why do people make that assumption? That would be the dumbest possible way to use AI.
Yeah, I didn’t really get that particular example. That seems functionally equivalent to a Google search. There is still a decision being made. You don’t have to go to the restaurant just because the AI suggests it.
I think it shows someone who is incapable of using Yelp or Google :P
I am familiar with both of those, and I sometimes ask ChatGPT because I am curious what it will come up with. I am curious to see if it comes up with something surprising or unexpected.
Perhaps the man in question is a thoughtful and curious person who was utilizing all of the resources available to him to provide a great experience to someone he cared about.
This take strongly resonates with my own attitude about AI use.
I often miss certain things that people consider important due to the humanity behind it, so this may be one of those cases (although things like art and I definitely do see that for) - but this feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me.
If I went on a few dates with someone and was really having a great time, but they told me that all their planning and conversation pieces were from a gen AI platform, I absolutely wouldn't like that. If they used it to audit some code to check for any performance considerations though? Those are so different, at least to me.
This quote:
> A good friend recently told me that she spent a night with a man, and in the morning suggested they get breakfast together. He took out his phone, opened ChatGPT, and asked for restaurant suggestions. Why get close to someone who outsources decisions, including the fun ones like picking where to eat?
Is one I find fair. There is some humanity to choosing some place to eat with another human. It also doesn't feel crazy to me to outsource the gathering and ranking to ChatGPT, though.
Then a lot of the article banks on "societal harm":
> OK, so ChatGPT helps you write your grocery list. Does your individual convenience outweigh the societal harm it can cause?
With some of the things that the article points out to, like water and power usage, I can also see the argument there. But then you can point to so many other things with similar arguments. A classic being "you're using an iPhone right now, don't you know how those are made".
This quote also feels along these lines to me:
> Pereira thinks that using ChatGPT “shows such a laziness”.
>
>“It’s like you can’t think for yourself, and you have to rely on an app for that,” she said.
But we all use Google and a million other services that "remove thinking". This just feels like an additional step (depending on the case, as mentioned above).
I have no idea where to stand on any of this. There's so much to consider and I feel like I can only find one side or the other online to read about. No one with a middle ground that makes sense (that I've stumbled upon).
That said, I do think there's a huge difference between having it draft your love letters for you and having it tell you how to best treat a cut you got on your finger.
> Over the past few months, as warnings of an impending AI-induced doomsday have dominated my news feed and party conversations, I’ve come up with a new one. I will not date someone who uses ChatGPT.
It's fairly telling that the people who hold these strong opinions think of themselves as strong independent thinkers but are slavishly devoted to the opinions of an algorithm.
I think there are a lot of decent reasons to be skeptical of AI. But this doesn't read like someone who is thoughtfully cautious and has concerns over actual issues with LLMs - this reads like someone in the 50s reading about microwaves and committing to never own one.
> Socrates insists that writing destroys memory and weakens the mind.
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept13/2013/09/29/socrates-writi...
I would bet that back in days some women would get ick from men not remembering everything but writing it down.
When dating someone you are testing their decision making and preferences. It feels like outsourcing personality and feels insincere.
Excessive ChatGPT usage is cringe, yes, but I feel like this may be taking things just a little on the far side.
> I just cannot imagine forming a deep, lasting connection with someone who regularly interacts with a technology that’s kneecapping our collective attention spans
I wonder if she has such strong opinions on social media and short video content.
> I probably won’t find what I value in someone who thinks “productivity” means asking an app to summarize a movie plot so they don’t have to waste their time, you know, watching it.
Reasonable, but it would be very foolish to assume that everyone that uses LLMs uses it in such a stupid way. Everyone is free to have their own opinion, and my opinion is that the author didn't even try to go deep into the subject, just feeling the ick and reasoning it later.
I refuse to date someone who makes ridiculous complaints such as in this article.
I wonder if printed books were just as controversial when the printing press was invited.
I am an AI-hater all the way... but I do not get this.
ChatGPT is not a bad thing for dating. One friend of mine puts his messages in it and gets feed back. He claims it has really helped him correct his behavior.
Newspapers are really nailing these GenAI ragebait pieces.
> We know that the energy-intensive tech drains our water supply and hikes electricity bills.
Before GenAI, there was Google, AWS, Facebook, not to mention Netflix and friends. A single streaming episode probably uses more resources all told than reasonable ChatGPT use over a month.
> It is sold as a placebo for human connection; lonely, disconnected people finding companionship or even falling in love with code is not as much a sci-fi plot point as it is just the way things go now.
Anything/everything possible is sold as a placebo for human connection because loneliness is a powerful human motivator (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc. etc.) Before that: TV.
> The megarich tech bros in charge of all this think in terms of profit first and people second.
Most profitable corps think about profit, yes. The idea is that they can't profit unless people get something good out of it. If they can profit without people getting something good, it's a failure in the system, so the correct target is market breakdown: bad regulation, unbroken monopolies, fraud, etc.
> OK, so ChatGPT helps you write your grocery list. Does your individual convenience outweigh the societal harm it can cause?
...
[flagged]
Drop another rung for the patriarchy- is chat just a very temporary stop gap en route to partnership parity or even matriarchal dominance?
Let’s just say intelligence is changing and wisdom is in deep collapse using this tech.
Our drive to be creative and chance failure and seek expert help dissolves in a general tool that automates what it is to be human.