It’s not. Social media personas is most of what gets seen, hence your understandable conclusion. What most don’t see are those who do not give a damn about that and just do the work.
> _An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything_
I think it might be just the opposite: convincing yourself of things relies on exploiting limits for which very intelligent people have much higher threshold they might as well not have them. When it comes to happiness, it’s kind of a superpower which I think very intelligent people just don’t have because it fights against their intelligence by definition. It’s also something that I think happens unconsciously.
It’s ironic, as you yourself provided a perfect example: a logic argument depending on unproven assumptions, if it lands in “convincing” yourself, exploits a limitation in accounting for the validity of the assumptions themselves (meaning: you believe it anyway). Assuming one could pick and choose the arguments (i.e., what to believe in) wouldn’t that trivially unlock happiness?
People choose to believe what they desire and all desire eventually leads to disappointment and dissatisfaction. So, no, even if you could choose to convince yourself of whatever you want you're still not going to be happy. Also, people tend to pick the worst case scenario as a defense mechanism in most cases.
If you really want to be happy you need to let go of your preferences; your desires and aversions.
I get the point of the article and it resonates with my general tendency to support more openness, but older and more cynical me wonders how much of this is a battle worth fighting or a self-serving argument from an harness developer.
I mean, the article says each of the points it is complaining about has “_a basic justification that's trivial for a provider to come up with, along with good arguments for why this is good for the user_“, which to me sounds like implying these are just bs to have people accept them, but is that actually the case?
For instance, this [0] was mentioned here a while ago, and based on that it seems pretty clear why one would choose not to provide the _thinking_ anymore…
> these are just bs to have people accept them, but is that actually the case?
I tried to outline that in my sibling comment[0], but I think the article also gives a good example in the "hidden searches" paragraph: There is really no good reason not to expose details about many of the builtin tools, or provide them as standalone services, other than protect their moat.
I don't think that "role confusion" attacks could be meaningful prevented by not showing reasoning traces. Prevention of reasoning traces is about as futile as prevention of system prompt leakage. And here you would just have to manage to exfiltrate a small number of reasoning traces per model family in order to distill the writing style of thinking traces.
reply