What profession do you have that made you a Luddite based on the current state of LLMs and AI?
I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite today than five years ago, not sure why others would either. Anti-capitalist or Anti-fascist I'd understand, considering the state of the world and the current direction.
First of all, the AI should not take the claim at face value. I would begin by questioning the assumption that "the response here misunderstood my post" and look for reasons why that is false, not just be a servile parrot to my interlocutor, and contrive for them ways their belief might be true.
What happened in the conversation is that CaptainOfCoit obviously understands that the noosphr's post is a general remark about human nature.
CaptainOfCoit is using the (highly popular Internet) debating strategy of presenting anecotal evidence. "Hey, I'm a datapoint against your generalization: I work in a number of areas all affected by AI, and, look at me, I'm not a Luddite. What areas are you working in that you see people turning into Luddites? Why, it can't be art, music or programming!".
There is no misunderstanding, but only the fallacy of using a personal anecdote against a generalization that was never presented as absolute.
It's actually kind of amazing that Claude didn't latch on to this angle.
I didn't say that using personal anecdotes against generalizations is a "sophisticated debate tactic", LOL. In fact, added a mildly sarcastic commentary in parentheses whose careful interpretation conveys the opposite.
Claude is clearly engaging in classic trolling at this point, putting words into mouths.
People who use anecdotal arguments tend to be dolts who genuinely believe that their experiences are those of most people. "You can't be a programmer, artist or musician because I'm in all those activities and I'm not a Luddite nor trending toward becoming one (and neither is anyone else I know). My reality represents everyone similar to me, but maybe in whatever fields or hobbies you are working in, there are Luddites against AI, so you are generalizing that to everyone."
In no way am I intending to present that as sophistication, rather than a misunderstanding.
So, yes, actually in a way Claude's original analysis has a grain of truth in that someone who uses personal anecdotes in arguments assumes that others are also only proceeding from personal anecdotes (i.e. making a confession and the like) rather than some kind of based generalization. I.e. they operate in a mode in which, unless perhaps concrete data is given from credible studies, everyone's statement is just from their personal anecdotes, like their own.
Be it AI or a personal consult, it's generally more productive to engage on what one's own misunderstandings might be first and work out from that. It tends to wipe away a lot of, but not all (of course), the trust in these kinds of responses as being meaningful additions to moving the conversation forward on their own.
Example from Claude in the reverse:
When I posted asking "What profession do you have that made you a Luddite based on the current state of LLMs and AI?", CaptainOfCoit responded: "I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite today than five years ago..."
I initially wondered if this response implied I was the only person with such a profession who became skeptical of AI. Here's why that interpretation might occur, even though it's likely not what was meant:
The Potential Misunderstanding:
The phrasing "I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite..." could be read as implicitly contrasting with my position—as if to say "I have these exact professions you're asking about, yet I didn't become a Luddite, so why did you?"
This creates an unintended impression that my reaction might be unusual or isolated among people in these fields.
What Was Likely Actually Meant:
CaptainOfCoit was almost certainly just:
- Answering my question directly by sharing their own professional background
- Expressing genuine curiosity about why others would become more Luddite-leaning
- Offering their own perspective that anti-capitalism or anti-fascism might be more justified stances than Luddism
The Takeaway:
Text-based conversations can create ambiguity. A straightforward personal statement can accidentally feel like an implicit challenge, especially when discussing contentious topics. CaptainOfCoit was likely just contributing their experience to the discussion, not suggesting my perspective was uniquely misguided.
Maybe take 10 minutes (without Claude) and try to figure out why, I'm sure it could be helpful for future human-to-human conversations. Hint: The reasons are not "AI despite useful"
