inanimate objects don't interpret the abuse as input and have it impact their task. If shouting at a car reduced its fuel efficiency maybe it wouldn't be socially acceptable. I agree that none of this stuff has "feelings" but prompting like this will lead to alignment issues. Given the control we give these agents, that's inherently problematic.
Be comprehensive, mostly positive and straight forward, especially in opening specs and base .mds. Using this tech is a responsibility because it can do a lot of stuff that you don't expect it to. Telling it "NEVER FUCKING GUESS", it going to increase that possibility because its an extremely strong and extremely ambiguous prompt.
You have to remember exactly how few people are represented by current US policies. They are willing to elect increasingly fringe candidates, "Just to feel something", in the hopes that something will change for them.
Important distinction: Google’s official, publicly declared policy is to follow the government names. Apple has never publicly declared any such policy. It was a choice.
(If Apple have indeed said this somewhere I’m happy to be proven wrong)
Or, if you're the IDF, and the bunker is filled with neutral UN Observers monitoring for war crimes, you also send in a laser-guided bunker-busting airstrike. Then you insist it was an "accident" while refusing to cooperate with the subsequent investigations.
Of note, just days before the strike, one of the Observers sent an unencrypted email home to his wife noting that he was observing Israeli war crimes and would be reporting them.
It's slowly getting worse. For instance, the update nag for Pages and Numbers Applications towards their newer subscription-capable equivalents can't be disabled in the MacOS UI. Selecting "Not Now" still results in the nag appearing every. single. day.
This is one of the very techniques under which the entire Apple Empire has been built. They take the "sweet spot" for $product and intentionally offer options on either side of that sweet spot. They also nerf the lower-end option in other ways (i.e. fewer ports) so to make the upgrade more enticing. This enables them to offer "Prices starting from...." that are dead-end options (like 8GB RAM or 128GB HD's).
Lots of companies do this across various industries. But it works best when the brand name is really strong and/or the competitive landscape is very weak.
I've grown to accept that it's just how they operate.
If you understood the history then it would make more sense. Mullenweg is himself a notorious bully. There have been Mullenweg related uhh... "controversies" going back roughly two decades. People are tired.
Is the WP community toxic? No, it's absolutely lovely. But there is a dark cloud over everything when it comes to the project's direction and governance.
Mullenweg yields enormous power and is famously vindictive, so people can't speak up in healthier ways. I think this is the result; when a leader constantly wields his power to destroy critics, they tend to move underground.
But nobody posts this stuff "with glee". Quite the contrary.
(For the record, I think some of the critique goes over the line as well, but that's just the internet. I don't think it's as prominent as your comment seems to imply).
Wouldn’t emotional abuse require both a perpetrator and victim?