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

591–600 of 677 posts

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

#591

Post by jeeenie »

elwebmaster wrote: post #545
shkkmo wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a wordy response that lacks any actual content. While it may not be written by a person, (or it may be a person trying to blur the line by sounding botty), it at least qualifies as the types of low value add comment that should be discouraged.

It’s surprisingly easy to identify AI comments in informal or semi-informal setting. They are too wordy. They would never say something stupid, controversial, or offensive.

It would be hilarious if the way to prevent bots is t require people to use offensive words to pass the anti-bot checks.

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

#592

Post by Method-X »

foepys wrote: post #456
profstasiak wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Christ this is going to be so incredibly boring, paranoid and lonely for everyone in a few years time! I think the opposite will be true. I hope we will spend more people talking to each other in real life, which actually makes me happy that dead internet is happening. I dont know if you buy this theory of social media causing loneliness. I intuitively feel that way and the more I talk with friends on chat, or comme…

> I hope we will spend more people talking to each other in real life, which actually makes me happy that dead internet is happening. This is certainly true for the majority of people but will be very bad for people who don't fit in with their surroundings. It will hurt communities like LGBTQ+ quite a lot to not be able to talk to other like-minded/open real people.

They will have to find each other offline and come together in healthier ways. The world has changed a lot in the past couple decades. They'll be fine.

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

#593

Post by eternalban »

jerf wrote: post #542
sheepscreek wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do not mistake ChatGPT for AI in general. ChatGPT, GPT, and transformers in general are not the end state of AI. They are one particular manifestation and projecting forward from them is drawing a complex hypershape through a single point (even worse than drawing a line through a single point). It is probably more humanly-accurate to say that ChatGPT has no opinions at all. It has no understanding of truth, it has no…

The mirroring/reflecting aspect of ChatGPT is a defining aspect.

I agree that this is not general AI. I think we could be looking at the future of query engines feeding probabilistic compute engines.

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

#594

Post by mdp2021 »

krageon wrote: post #587
mdp2021 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

The reading is not bad, I am just stuck at the point of the conversation where you claim to have something figured out that is not yet figured out (the nature of consciousness, or what it means to be intelligent). There is no scientific or philosophical consensus for it, so it is my instinct to not engage too deeply with the material. After all, what is the point? No doubt it seems very consistent to you, but it does…

> the nature of consciousness

As per my edit in the parent post, I am talking about "useful" Intelligence: that may be entirely different from consciousness. A well matured though, "thought at length", may probably be useful, while a rushed thought may probably be detrimental. I am not speaking about consciousness. I am not even speaking of "natural intelligence": I am speaking about Intelligence as a general process. That process near "How well, how deeply have you thought about it".

> my reading "devastatingly bad"

What made your reading devastatingly bad is the part in which you supposed that somebody said that "it cannot be implemented" - you have written «above any sort of imitation». I wrote that, having insisted on "modules to be implemented", you should have had the opposite idea: the constituents of Intelligence - with which I mean the parts of the process in that sort of Intelligence that "says smart things having produced them with a solid process" (not relevant to "consciousness") - should be implemented.

> delusional

Again very avoidable. If you find that something is delusional, justify your view.

> flame wars

I am just discussing, and try to show what I find evident, and reasoning. Hint: when wanting to avoid flame wars, "keep it rational".

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

#595

Post by throwaway86530 »

Discussions are supposed to go both way. The first way - I learn things - is still valid, maybe even more with the advance of AI. Even if all the contributions I just read were AI generated, I would have liked it. I guess. But the second way - I teach things - get partially destroyed if I lose time interacting with bots. Forums need to be reinvented to provide some sense of trust. I am not sure that's the end of online privacy though, we are smarter than that and we will certainly figure out systems that will ensure a human wrote it without gathering personal informations.

Somewhere else someone pointed out that using AI to reformulate our thoughts while masking our own style is a possible protection for our anonymity considering the kind of threat showed in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33755016 . This should seriously be taken into account.

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

#596

Post by soraki_soladead »

krageon wrote: post #582
soraki_soladead wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t read it as being a religious take. They appear to be referring more to embodiment (edit: alternatively, online/continual learning) which these models do not posses. When we start persisting recurrent states beyond the current session we might be able to consider that limited embodiment. Even still the models will have no direct experience interacting with the subjects of their conservations. Its all second h…

Your own experience is also second hand, so what is left is the temporal factor (you experience and learn continuously and with a small feedback loop). I do not see how it can be the case that there is some sort of cutoff where the feedback loop is fast enough that something is "truly" there. This is a nebulous argument that I do not see ending when we actually get to human-equivalent learning response times, because…

Second hand may not have been the best phrasing on my part, I admit. What I mean is that the model only has textual knowledge in its dataset to infer what “basketball” means. It’s never seen/heard a game, even if through someone else’s eyes/ears. It has never held and felt a basketball. Even visual language models today only get a single photo right now. It's an open question how much that matters and if the model can convey that experience entirely through language.

There are entire bodies of literature addressing things the current generation of available LLMs are missing: online and continual learning, retrieval from short-term memory, the experience from watching all YouTube videos, etc.

I agree that human exceptionalism and vitalism are common in these discussions but we can still discuss model deficiencies from a research and application point of view without assuming a religious argument.

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

#597

Post by mdp2021 »

dang wrote: post #498
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should HN ban the discussion of mobile apps on smartphones on its platform? The excessive use of mobile apps on smartphones has been linked to addiction and a range of negative effects on mental and physical health [0]. Should HN consider banning the use of mobile apps on smartphones on its platform in order to promote a healthier and more focused environment for discussions? [0] : https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/heal…

The community here would never support such a measure.

I suspect the poster may have meant something along the lines of "going against progress", or other indirect suggestion.

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

#598

Post by contravariant »

krageon wrote: post #526
contravariant wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it might produce convincing examples of human speech, but it fundamentally lacks an internal point of view that it can express, which places limits on how well it can argue something. It is of course possible that it might (eventually) be convincing enough that no human can tell, which would be problematic because it would suggest human speech is indistinguishable from a knee jerk response that doesn't require t…

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…

It doesn't have to have a metaphorical (or metaphysical or w/e) soul, but at this point it does not have it's own 'opinion'. It will happily argue either way with only a light push, it talks because it is ordered to, not because it is trying to communicate information. This severely limits the kind of things it can do.

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

#599

Post by contravariant »

ZetaZero wrote: post #522
contravariant wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it might produce convincing examples of human speech, but it fundamentally lacks an internal point of view that it can express, which places limits on how well it can argue something. It is of course possible that it might (eventually) be convincing enough that no human can tell, which would be problematic because it would suggest human speech is indistinguishable from a knee jerk response that doesn't require t…

"Sure it might produce convincing examples of human speech, but it fundamentally lacks an internal point of view that it can express..." Sounds just like the chess experts from 30 years ago. Their belief at the time was that computers were good at tactical chess, but had no idea how to make a plan. And Go would be impossible for computers, due to the branching factor. Humans would always be better, because they could…

Having some internal point of view matters in as much that not having one means it's not really trying to communicate anything. A text generation AI would be a much more useful interface if it can form a view an express it rather than just figuring it all out from context.

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

#600

Post by whiplash451 »

kossTKR wrote: post #24

The fact that soon the internet will be so flooded with bots that you'll be floating eternally alone in a sea of imposters unless we create some draconian real person ID system is a tragedy so great it's crazy it has not dawned on people yet. I started out loving the net because of the feelings of connection and partly because of the honesty and discussions stemming from at least pseudo anonymity, both silly stuff an…

I am entirely with you, having experienced the "early" years of the internet back in the 90s.

That being said, I think "back to local communities and family" is a regression because the internet, at least at the beginning, promised genuine interactions between people across the world. There's got to be a way to fulfill that promise without falling into 1984.

Post reply on HN