91–100 of 122 posts
I don't see many useful applications of GPT-3. I'm sure 90% of its applications will be spam, fake reviews, SEO, fake news and everything fake in general..
I recall an AI playing a game that, just before losing, would press the "menu" button to pause the game and then stop doing anything. It fulfilled it's goal (not lose). That behavior should set expectations when it comes to AI. Also, am-I the only one that thinks this whole "chat bot having a natural conversation to book an appointment" is useless when a simple date-picker would do?
> am-I the only one that thinks this whole "chat bot having a natural conversation to book an appointment" is useless when a simple date-picker would do? Nope. I find being forced to converse in English with a machine to be absolutely infuriating. I know what I want and how to tell it to a machine. Being forced to add noise words to allow my request to pass through a useless extra layer is a disrespectful waste of my…
I'm most likely to use this system in a busy airport. After enough times of it not understanding me, it finally put me on hold for half an hour for me to read the number to a person. Something that took me less than a minute previously now was super frustrating.
I must not have been the only person this affected because they added back in the option to use touch tone.
Note that AI is lying here. It has no emotions and cannot be sorry but says that it is. I think that robots shouldn't pretend to be a human, they should behave as robots.
A couple things: 1. as I understand, GPT-x are trained on generic datasets. Why would anyone expect it could just be repurposed for a domain specific task, without additional fine tuning? Same as a lot of vision models are trained on Imagenet and then fine tuned for the application, but you would never expect that imagenet weights would just automatically perform whatever specific task you had. 2. Where would this ch…
Regarding 2. That's what doctor's receptionists do all day. They must be doing it for some reason. I guess old people don't like annoying web forms? I'm old and I don't. For example, I've formed a habit of opening terms and conditions links in another tab because I've experienced forms that clear your data when you click them directly then try to to "back" afterwards. But just a few weeks ago, I did that and when I r…
The problem is frontend developers reinventing their own widgets and protocols because "moronic SPA reasons".
Who would be responsible? It would be criminally negligent, of course, but it feels like something worse, much worse.
The only word I can think of is torture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I know what I want and how to tell it to a machine. Yeah, Google search is not that great when you want to do conditional search in a topic with many false positives. For example I want to find a light electric scooter, under 10Kg of weight. Google will happily report all the pages that contain scooter and kg, but the kg would be for the max weight of the person, not the scooter itself. How do I tell it that in key…
Altavista had the "near" operator.
In this case, thankfully, the patient was "fake". But let's pretend for a moment that a "mental health chat bot" really did tell an actual patient to kill themselves, and they did. Who would be responsible? It would be criminally negligent, of course , but it feels like something worse, much worse. The only word I can think of is torture.
This is discussed from a philosophical point of view on Arte[1] (french with english subtitles). Specifically in form of the Trolley Problem[2].
What I see as a bigger problem is that since AIs are so complex, there is simple way to understand why the AI decided the way it did in a particular situation.
So the question becomes are we willing to accept AI deciding over life and death and in addition, do we accept that we're not able to decipher why AI decide how it decided?
[1]=https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/098794-001-A/how-to-solve-a-mo... [2]=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
I recall an AI playing a game that, just before losing, would press the "menu" button to pause the game and then stop doing anything. It fulfilled it's goal (not lose). That behavior should set expectations when it comes to AI. Also, am-I the only one that thinks this whole "chat bot having a natural conversation to book an appointment" is useless when a simple date-picker would do?
... it worked, but only in a specific area of the lab. When they looked at the layout, they discovered the ML system designed a circuit that picked up relevant nearby EM/radio noise as the source, so when the chip was moved - it broke. It produced a radio! :)
Wish I could remember the article since it also mentioned unusual circuit designs that weren't directly connected to each other, but used some IC 'gotchas' in advantageous ways (albeit inconsistently) to reach the goal.
While this is very serious, this basic idea shows why I don't think any company can ever use GPT-3 in a user facing system, except for entertainment. They will say things, like your patients should kill your self, or promise your customers they can have your product, or even your business, for free.
I mean the OpenAI team would never approve this application for production. It's very clearly stated (in both the article and use case guidelines) that medical diagnosis would be a "high stakes domain" and is unsupported. Frankly, I'm not sure why this result is even notable.
because probably in due time when building a model of that size becomes slightly more affordable someone with the 'move fast and break things' mentality will peddle a bot like this to customers and we'll find ourselves in a situation where this actually happens to a real person.