Users dismiss claims of superhuman persuasiveness as nonexistent, arguing it reduces to mere sociological preference cascades.
Based on 3 visible X reactions from 7 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
@seventhmeal Exactly. There's no such thing as superhuman persuasiveness. It's all just a sociological preference cascade.
@deepfates Yes. There's no such thing as superhuman persuasiveness. It's all just a sociological preference cascade.
@deepfates Its for similar reasons to why you cannot wordcel your way towards sexual attraction from a specific person
I think charisma/persuasion/manipulation are skills that some humans are much better at than others. This isn't to say that the environment/situation doesn't matter (it matters a lot!) or that this skill is unbounded, just that skill matters and can reach high levels! Depending on the exact application, AI-enabled persuasion/manipulation/political-maneuvering will be structurally disadvantaged by some environmental/situational factors (e.g., humans are credible and have a physical presence), but also advantaged by some other factors (e.g., everyone is using AIs, they're more capable and more knowledgeable than any human, they might be seen as unbiased). On net, I'd say they are disadvantaged, but for many applications, these structural factors don't matter because the work is all behind the scenes (making ads, figuring out talking points, writing speeches, whispering a response into an earbud). Like, obviously it helps a lot with 1:1 persuasion if you're also a powerful and physically attractive individual, but this doesn't mean things are fine if these attributes aren't present! And human abilities here do in fact seem to get very high! The people who are best at this seem to succeed to a considerable degree even on people who are predisposed to strongly dislike them. I don't think these abilities have to be unbounded to be concerning. For a semi-related example: TikTok and YouTube Shorts seem pretty addictive while being far from the limit of what's possible here. I don't think it's obvious that it's a huge problem if anyone can cheaply spin up a team of AIs that are somewhat better than the best humans at these cognitive skills (to the extent these skills exist) to try to persuade someone else, but I think it's concerning enough to take seriously! > Rather, they're perceived being "persuasive" because they happen to be the figureheads for a complex sociological preference cascade. I think you might change your mind if you interact 1:1 with the people who are believed to be most charismatic in that setting.
that's right. There's no such thing as superhuman persuasiveness. It's all just a sociological preference cascade. Keep telling yourself that. keep reading my tweets https://twitter.com/adi_baradwaj/status/2076104545869222260
Critics argue persuasion is a sociological process rather than a scalable scalar skill.
@seventhmeal Exactly. There's no such thing as superhuman persuasiveness. It's all just a sociological preference cascade.
@deepfates Yes. There's no such thing as superhuman persuasiveness. It's all just a sociological preference cascade.
@deepfates Its for similar reasons to why you cannot wordcel your way towards sexual attraction from a specific person
I think charisma/persuasion/manipulation are skills that some humans are much better at than others. This isn't to say that the environment/situation doesn't matter (it matters a lot!) or that this skill is unbounded, just that skill matters and can reach high levels! Depending on the exact application, AI-enabled persuasion/manipulation/political-maneuvering will be structurally disadvantaged by some environmental/situational factors (e.g., humans are credible and have a physical presence), but also advantaged by some other factors (e.g., everyone is using AIs, they're more capable and more knowledgeable than any human, they might be seen as unbiased). On net, I'd say they are disadvantaged, but for many applications, these structural factors don't matter because the work is all behind the scenes (making ads, figuring out talking points, writing speeches, whispering a response into an earbud). Like, obviously it helps a lot with 1:1 persuasion if you're also a powerful and physically attractive individual, but this doesn't mean things are fine if these attributes aren't present! And human abilities here do in fact seem to get very high! The people who are best at this seem to succeed to a considerable degree even on people who are predisposed to strongly dislike them. I don't think these abilities have to be unbounded to be concerning. For a semi-related example: TikTok and YouTube Shorts seem pretty addictive while being far from the limit of what's possible here. I don't think it's obvious that it's a huge problem if anyone can cheaply spin up a team of AIs that are somewhat better than the best humans at these cognitive skills (to the extent these skills exist) to try to persuade someone else, but I think it's concerning enough to take seriously! > Rather, they're perceived being "persuasive" because they happen to be the figureheads for a complex sociological preference cascade. I think you might change your mind if you interact 1:1 with the people who are believed to be most charismatic in that setting.
that's right. There's no such thing as superhuman persuasiveness. It's all just a sociological preference cascade. Keep telling yourself that. keep reading my tweets https://twitter.com/adi_baradwaj/status/2076104545869222260
Users dismiss claims of superhuman persuasiveness as nonexistent, arguing it reduces to mere sociological preference cascades.
Based on 3 visible X reactions from 7 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.