661–670 of 677 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the under current what chatGPT does well is making a good first draft of a text which is intended to be mostly neutral. It is to communication what calculators are to mathematics.
Calculators are always correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you even really believe that yourself. https://youtu.be/7LKy3lrkTRA
The goal of HN is not “win argument” but curious debate. You know what I meant.
For the purposes of my education and socialisation to HN.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I'm on the fence, and don't disagree with the point, this is an awful example to use. The whole comment is written in a very noticeable Chat GPT "voice", making it very easy to tell it was generated by Chat GPT. It's also not a particularly fun comment.
Yeah OK, next time we'll try again without the reveal, let's see how that will turn out.
Despite your scepticism, there are a few things that gave this one away.
Repeating the subject noun rather than changing to "it" after the first use is the biggest one in this example. It sounds very unnatural to keep saying "ChatGPT", especially three sentences in a row, but ChatGPT seems to do it quite often.
Having said that, I'm not confident I could do much better than 50/50 when not primed with the knowledge that people are likely to post generated content right now, plus the context of the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal of HN is not “win argument” but curious debate. You know what I meant.
What was "curious debate" about your terse and wholly incorrect quip? For the purposes of my education and socialisation to HN.
My terse response was "no, because calculators are correct all the time whereas GPT is incorrect a lot of time". So, that reasoning can't be used. Need a different one.
So we conclude, no that's not a good analogy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was "curious debate" about your terse and wholly incorrect quip? For the purposes of my education and socialisation to HN.
Previous poster said that GPT is to writing what calculators are to math. That's an interesting point, is this an analogy we can reason with? My terse response was "no, because calculators are correct all the time whereas GPT is incorrect a lot of time". So, that reasoning can't be used. Need a different one. So we conclude, no that's not a good analogy.
That's what you mean by curious debate? Bizarre!
P.s. this is why it's a good analogy you've learnt something about calculators from thinking about the analogy as well as chatGPT