191–200 of 363 posts
ChatGPT is trained on the internet corpus written by humans. Over time, more and more of this corpus will be written by ChatGPT. Has anyone tested what happens when the output of a LLM is fed back as the training data?
"Show your work", "Correct answer without showing your work earns a zero". These were things that were extremely common in STEM classes when I was in school and were rare in English classes. This author/professor has a very solid point that English instructors being less lazy and grading on the process instead of the final result would go a long way in terms of combatting cheating and producing better writers. Anothe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the same worry. Another example: Is furniture nowadays more beautiful and durable than it used to be 100 years ago? Is there more variety now? Not in my book. Same goes for a lot of products that are now produced in the cheapest way possible at scale. Looks very much like a race to the bottom dominated by a few big players to me. Consumers don't seem to care that much.
The poor quality furniture of 100 years ago is no longer around.
Office furniture seems to have been incredibly well-built, though, by modern standards. Kinda like how office and government buildings used to be built a lot better. Institutions seem to have cared a lot more about that kind of thing back then. They built desks for ordinary low-paid clerks or typists like they expected the office to still be running, and still using that same desk, in 200 years.
[EDIT] Also, part of what makes older furniture seem so nice is that excellent-quality wood was abundant. It seems so nice because they used wood that'd be ultra-expensive luxury-grade today, for, like, interior structural parts you never even see. Same story for houses. I've seen wooden support beams that'd be almost impossible to find at any price, today, the quality's so high and the piece is so large. Floor underlayment (again, not even intended to be seen) so knot-free it'd probably be used for veneer, now. That kind of thing.
ChatGPT is trained on the internet corpus written by humans. Over time, more and more of this corpus will be written by ChatGPT. Has anyone tested what happens when the output of a LLM is fed back as the training data?
It was not a language model, but AlphaZero played against itself millions of games and trained on the data it generated, without seeing any human games. And it reached super human level, of course. Why was this possible? The game itself acted as an anti-bullshit filter. So you can train on your own generated data if you filter it. Like this one: Large Language Models Can Self Improve https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.11610
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people can't afford top talent to play live music at their wedding or photograph it.
I'm sort of sick of the top talent argument. My grandfather and group sang. From what tapes I have heard of them, they didn't sound worse than any other group of Appalachian gospel/blue grass singers. My parents' wedding photos weren't 'professional' and I think they came out pretty well, perhaps even charming. Sometimes I think people are putting too much stock in the notion of a 'perfect' life, rather than a lived…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that logic a sprinkler system is “artificial intelligence” when compared to a garden hose. That’s not what the term means.
That's exactly what artificial intelligence means... There is a secondary definition of AI that says basically an AI is anything that we haven't yet figured out how to do. Once we figure out how to do it, it ceases to be AI. Indeed, terms can and do have multiple meanings, but I'm not sure that secondary definition fits the topic of discussion.
That’s not the way anyone uses the term.
I see two big problems with GPT: 1. It presents information really well that is completely false. I don't know exactly how it works under the hood, but sometimes it spits out paragraphs that read like the fever dreams of a flat earther. 2. It will cause our communication skills to further atrophy. Maybe in an innocuous way (no one memorizes epic poems anymore), but with GPT I think it will make people less likely to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trading quality for price has been happening everywhere for long enough that it is easy to see how unfortunately it will now play out in the arts as well. I mean, not that long ago all clothes you wore were custom made by a tailor, all the music you listened to was played live by musicians, all stories were brought to life in front of you by theatre actors: now all of those while still available are significantly mor…
> now all of those while still available are significantly more expensive and niche than the mechanized (production or reproduction) equivalents. No, they cost exactly as much as they always had. Before machines, people didn't have wardrobes full of tailor-made clothes. Each person had, give or take one, exactly as many tailor-made clothes as we have today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI/LLMs cannot "do work that is worth doing" in this context because the work that is worth doing involves human learning/education, not simply the production of content. If you meant, "when can AI perform all writing tasks such that it would be a waste of time for human beings to develop the ability to express themselves in writing", well, fine question, likely answered far too soon.
It's already clear that existing LLM have the ability to do things that were previously only accessible to people with "human learning/education." "Production of content" can probably go a lot further than you think, for a model that has internet/API access. Would love to see more warrants on the claims you are making - feel like you haven't fleshed it out enough in this comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what artificial intelligence means... There is a secondary definition of AI that says basically an AI is anything that we haven't yet figured out how to do. Once we figure out how to do it, it ceases to be AI. Indeed, terms can and do have multiple meanings, but I'm not sure that secondary definition fits the topic of discussion.
You’re being insincere. Let me guess, you’d say a can opener is artificial intelligence compared to a pocket knife? That’s not the way anyone uses the term.
No. In that case the intelligence is applied by the user. A can opener could be a component in a larger AI system. An AI needs to be aware (in the artificial sense) of its surroundings.
Edit: I forgot that AI can openers do exist. The can opener I own is of the dumb machine kind and I hadn't fully considered what else might use that term. Yes, those are an AI.
> That’s not the way anyone uses the term.
Except when they do. Indeed, the "an AI is anything we haven't figured out yet" definition is about as common, but doesn't seem to be the definition that fits the topic at hand.
A third definition where AI is defined as an ANN seems to be emerging in popular culture, but again that doesn't really fit the topic at hand as a lot of the job-replacing intelligences are not based on ANNs.