Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 677 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#571

Post by mdp2021 »

Timwi wrote: post #544
mdp2021 wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> compare Exactly. Which one "/seems/ to make sense" and which one has the "juice". Also: are you insinuating anything? Do you believe your post is appropriate? Edit: but very clearly you misunderstood my post: not only as you suggest with your (very avoidable) expression, but also in fact. Because my point implied that "a good intellectual proposal should not happen by chance": modules should be implemented for it.…

> Do you believe your post is appropriate? Not op, but I thought it was. > very clearly you misunderstood my post I don't understand any part of it either. I think you made their point for them.

And you think that is a valid retort?

If you do not understand what I write, you think the fault is on me? My goodness me.

If you want explanations, look nearby, below Krageon's.

> I think you made their point for them

Which point.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#572

Post by dtagames »

chirau wrote: post #452
swader999 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct in stating that current chat bots, such as GPT, do not have the ability to form opinions or interpret new information beyond a limited short term memory. This is a limitation of current technology, and as a result, chat bots are limited in their ability to engage in complex arguments or discussions. However, it is important to note that the development of AI technology is ongoing, and it is possible t…

I am pretty sure this response was generated by a bot/GPT. As good as they are, you can tell what's GPT stuff and what isn't.

Already!

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#573

Post by krageon »

mdp2021 wrote: post #549
krageon wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely cannot tell what you are talking about.

No problem, let us try and explain. Intelligence is a process in which "you have thought over a problem at length" (this is also our good old Einstein, paraphrased). What is that "thinking"? You have taken a piece of your world model (the piece which subjected to your investigation), made mental experiments on it, you have criticized , _criticized_ the possible statements ("A is B") that could be applied to it, you h…

Thank you for going into it.

You make an absolute pile of assumptions here and the tl;dr appears to be that humans (or just you) are exceptional and inherently above any sort of imitation. I do not find such argumentation to be compelling, no matter how well dressed up it is.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#574

Post by sph »

neuronic wrote: post #536
sph wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fellow Internet human, I agree with you completely, there must be dozens of us. I wonder if I am just becoming a Luddite, or people have no idea whatsoever what will this unleash on already frail social fabric of the Internet. I wonder if we've reached a singularity point where you cannot be sure you are engaging with a human anymore and it's going to be instrumental in the demise of the net. First, it was the big co…

> I am in the peak of my career as a software engineer at 35, as many Millenials I've grown during the best years of it In the past, it must have been 2003-2008, I was sharing self-drawn comics and ideas how to improve on them with fellow artists, actually meeting them in real life sometimes at conventions. I was also active in a gaming forum plainly for discussing the lore and surrounding theories. These communities…

I know exactly what you mean, I miss that world deeply and I want to spend my energy trying to recreate it. Lately I've been trying to create my own small scale community of strangers to fight against this encroaching sense that connection with randoms is completely lost, unless you shout into the void and if you're lucky someone human engages with you honestly, on a personal level.

All this discussion and a sibling thread made me realise that only us, the Millennials that have grown halfway before and after the Internet explosion, know better than anyone else what this place was for a few golden years, and what we lost. It's on us and only us to do something about it.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#575

Post by krageon »

vehemenz wrote: post #555
krageon wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing that a piece of software misses a metaphorical soul (something that cannot be measured but that humans uniquely have and nothing else does). That's an incredibly poor argument to make in a context where folks want interesting conversation. Religion (or religion-adjacent concepts such as this one) is a conversational nuke: It signals to anyone else that the conversation is over, as a discussion on reli…

I find it ironic that you are expressing a strong opinion that opinions do not make good conversation. Philosophy is the highest form of interesting conversation, and it's right there with religion (possibly politics, too).

Philosophy can be interesting if it is not baseless navel gazing (i.e. it is founded on observation and fact, and derives from there). The fact that I find that interesting is subjective, but that's not the meat of the post.

Religion is fundamentally folks saying "No, I'm right!" and nothing else. Sometimes it's dressed up a little. What could be interesting about that? You can hear such arguments in any primary school playground during recess.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#576

Post by whywhywhywhy »

sheepscreek wrote: post #487
jacquesm wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the bar really isn't 'no human can tell' the bar is 'the bulk of the humans can't tell'. > Things would be quite different if an AI could interpret new information and form opinions, but even if GPT could be extended to do so, right now it doesn't seem to have the capability to form opinions or ingest new information (beyond a limited short term memory that it can use to have a coherent conversation). Forming opi…

A true AI will not have one opinion. It will realize there are many truths - one persons truth is really a perspective based on their inputs which are different than another's. Change the inputs and you’ll often get a different output. ChatGPT further proves this notion - you can ask it to prove/disprove the same point and it will do so quite convincingly both times.

I wouldn’t consider that an AI but more a machine that tells me what I want to hear.

If it’s intelligent it should have an opinion that consulting all the facts it will hold in as high of a regard as humans do their religious and political beliefs.

And I mean one it came to of its own conclusions not a hard coded “correct” one the devs gave it, something that makes us uncomfortable.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#577

Post by jacooper »

neuronic wrote: post #551
jacooper wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to happen, unless OpenAI and other AI developers, create a hidden unique Cryptic signature inside AI responses. I've read somewhere that openAI is already working on this. If that doesn't work, I think effective discussions on the internet might plausibly shift gradually to other languages, since AI is currently only focused on English, and I doubt thats going to change any time soon. first towards Euro…

What about malicious entities that will simply not do this and publish ChatGPT without any such safety measures? It's happening with Stable Diffusion. The tech-cat is absolutely out of the box now.

For english yes, but not other languages.

I edited the comment to reflect the possibility of effective internet discussions shifting to other languages.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#578

Post by krageon »

lettergram wrote: post #567
krageon wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing that a piece of software misses a metaphorical soul (something that cannot be measured but that humans uniquely have and nothing else does). That's an incredibly poor argument to make in a context where folks want interesting conversation. Religion (or religion-adjacent concepts such as this one) is a conversational nuke: It signals to anyone else that the conversation is over, as a discussion on reli…

Perhaps you have people around you who are not well suited to political, religious philosophical discussions or perhaps you don’t enjoy them / can’t entertain them. Personally, I find the only interesting conversations technical or philosophical in nature. Just the other day, I was discussing with friends how ethics used to be a regular debated topic in society. Literally, every Sunday people would gather and discuss…

A discussion about ethics must involve a discussion about the effects of a system of ethics on a group of people: This is a real-world effect that must have it's issues and priors spoken about, or you risk creating an ethical system for a group of people that will inevitably destroy them (which I would argue is bad, but I guess that is also debatable).

Such a discussion is about something tangible, and not purely about held opinion (i.e. you can go out and test it). I can see how someone might find that engaging. You are right that I usually do not (unless my conversational buddies have something novel to say about the subject, I find it extremely tedious). It is a good point, thank you.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#579

Post by expert_here »

Most of the human responses on HN can be distilled down to about a dozen "trope" answers. For example "Rewrite it in Rust" or "Patents are bad" or "Let's not turn this into reddit" or "I'm special so x doesn't apply to me" or "Zoning laws shouldn't exist", etc.

So you don't even need ChatGPT to be convincing on Hacker News. You just need a few dozen lines of Perl.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#580

Post by mdp2021 »

krageon wrote: post #573
mdp2021 wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No problem, let us try and explain. Intelligence is a process in which "you have thought over a problem at length" (this is also our good old Einstein, paraphrased). What is that "thinking"? You have taken a piece of your world model (the piece which subjected to your investigation), made mental experiments on it, you have criticized , _criticized_ the possible statements ("A is B") that could be applied to it, you h…

Thank you for going into it. You make an absolute pile of assumptions here and the tl;dr appears to be that humans (or just you) are exceptional and inherently above any sort of imitation. I do not find such argumentation to be compelling, no matter how well dressed up it is.

Devastatingly bad reading, Krageon: I wrote that to have Intelligence in an Engine, you have to implement at least some Critical Thinking into it (and that it has to be a "good" one), and you understood that I would have claimed that "you cannot implement it" - again, after having insisted that "you have to build it explicitly" (or at least you have to build something that in the end happens to do it)?!

You have to build it and you have to build that.

The assumption there is that you cannot call something Intelligent without it having Critical Thinking (and other things - Ontology building etc). If you disagree, provide an argument for it.

And by the way: that «or just you», again, and again without real grounds, cannot be considered part of the "proudest moments" of these pages.

--

Edit:

Disambiguation: of course with "intelligence" you may mean different things. 'intelligence' just means "the ability to look inside". But "[useful] Intelligence" is that with well trained Critical Thinking (and more).

Post reply on HN