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

ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

biblioracle.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 363 posts

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#231

Post by jrd259 »

harveywi wrote: post #10
causality0 wrote: post #8

I'm coming around to the idea that in general the more bullshit something is the easier it is for AI to disrupt.

It is only a matter of time before ChatGPT learns how to ask: 1. What did you do yesterday? 2. What will you do today? 3. Any blockers?

The point of the DSU isn't to force the engineer to recite what they did, it's to inform the peers so people can coordinate. I also find that engineers are reluctant to admit being blocked or to ask for help at all. My team gets value from the DSU. I'm sorry if you think the DSU (or the role of SDM) is so useless that it ought to be automated away.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#232

Post by fullstackchris »

Gare wrote: post #195
apocalypstyx wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly, that's my point. I'd rather listen to a "good enough" local band performing live than some "World's best" recorded performance.

I mean the whole concept of "world's best" in terms of art doesn't even make sense. It rarely, if ever, makes sense in other areas or fields as well. (even sports, where it is is sometimes objective, records and acheivements are broken all the time again and again)

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#234

Post by jfirebaugh »

samwestdev wrote: post #203
jfirebaugh wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It fixed some things (“ChatGPT have”, “It’s has”) but changed the meaning of the first sentence and introduced a misplaced modifier (“As a non-native English speaker, ChatGPT…”).

Can you please explain how that is considered a misplaced modifier?

Sure. To be more precise, it's a "dangling modifier" [1]. The modifying clause "As a non-native English speaker" intends to refer to the narrator, who is using ChatGPT to improve their text. But the sentence as constructed, where this clause is followed by the subject "ChatGPT", might be read as implying that ChatGPT is a non-native English speaker. The original beginning "I am not a native English speaker..." was clearer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#235

Post by chimeracoder »

pdonis wrote: post #171
tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #74

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…

> Trading quality for price Means that many, many more people can have something of passable quality. For example: > not that long ago all clothes you wore were custom made by a tailor If you could afford a tailor; otherwise you had to make do with homemade rags that constantly needed mending and looked terrible. > all the music you listened to was played live by musicians If you could afford to go to concerts. > all…

> > not that long ago all clothes you wore were custom made by a tailor

> If you could afford a tailor; otherwise you had to make do with homemade rags that constantly needed mending and looked terrible.

Or you bought clothes infrequently and maintained them, and they lasted longer because the quality was much better.

People are so used to fast fashion these days that they assume that the poor in previous eras suffered in this regard way more than they actually did, because people assume the poor quality of clothing today is representative of how it always was, rather than a recent phenomenon.

The quality of clothing was much, much higher - even for the relatively poor - and clothing wasn't treated as disposable, so people would maintain and repair it, so it would last much longer.

> Which the vast majority of people can afford, and which significantly improves their quality of life. Now they can buy clothes at Walmart or Target

Buying clothes at Walmart or Target is a step down, not a step up. (And ironically, it's not even necessarily cheaper!).

If we're talking about clothing, it's very clear that these trends have served to the detriment of the average person, not to their benefit. The ones who actually benefit are the ones capturing the profit - the Sam Waltons of the world.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#236

Post by wildgartopia »

brickteacup wrote: post #168
tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #74

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…

> all the music you listened to was played live by musicians, all stories were brought to life in front of you by theatre actors well, no, you probably didn't listen to much music or see many stories at all because the average person couldn't afford to experience such things more than a few times in their life. shocking that Luddites are still a thing in the 21st century, especially here.

I think this misses the point that _everyone_ used to sing and tell stories. What do you all think families did in the winter around a fire? Where do "folk tales" come from? It's as if you think joy in sharing stories and music is restricted to a monetary transaction. Sure, some people were better story tellers than others, or more beautiful singers than others, but that gave reason for communities to exist, to share food and company; not for money, but because once you have shelter and food, what more than that do you really need? And also, without community, can you even have shelter and food? The vast majority of humans that have lived, let's say since spoken language developed, have shared stories and music as a gift. It wasn't until very recently (relatively) that sharing these things became transactional.

Sorry that was a ramble, please take no offense.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#237

Post by namaria »

bulgur wrote: post #52
_petronius wrote: post #14

I'm less worried about stuff like ChatGPT killing things off, but more about just making everything noticeably a bit worse. To take an analogy: bad voice recognition software abounds everywhere, not because it is better than what it replaced in terms of UX, but because it works just enough and allows massive cost-savings on hiring people to do customer service jobs. A world where most marketing copy is written by med…

[dead]

It's only true literature if it's spawned by neuron networks bred inside the skulls of free ranging apes. When it comes from simulated neuron networks built by software in datacenters it's just sparkling copy.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#238

Post by yamtaddle »

badcppdev wrote: post #206
yamtaddle wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Recording and photography killed almost all the value (social and financial) of middling artistic talent in music, storytelling, and visual arts, which may well have been what gave a lot of people a significant part of their sense of self-worth before that—plus, maybe, some income. Now AI's coming for most of those who survived that first culling. And not just the middling-talent folks this time.

That's an interesting set of transition that I hadn't really comprehended. People used to be entertained by live performers in their local area. Printing, photography, radio, film, television, etc have all increased the availability and 'quality' of entertainment available at the same time as reducing the number of creators involved. (Obviously there is some debate possible around quality)

It's Vonnegut's observation. He brings it up in a couple books or stories, IIRC, but like nearly all his themes or messages, it's included in Bluebeard.

Being a half-competent folk musician or good storyteller or being able to sketch pretty well used to be super valuable to your family and community. Not so much anymore. Expressions of those sorts of skills are more often tolerated than genuinely looked-forward-to, now. The need is gone.

People on this site complain about folks being consumers and not producers, not being creative—well, for a large swath of the arts, that's where it started. Recording and photography. Took it from something that was strongly socially encouraged & rewarded to something private. You can't fix that with "maker" movements—not in any major way.

Technology changed the social context and wiped out the external motivation & encouragement for a bunch of kinds of creative expression that were accessible to & achievable by the masses. AI is more of the same.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#239

Post by chrisweekly »

_petronius wrote: post #14

I'm less worried about stuff like ChatGPT killing things off, but more about just making everything noticeably a bit worse. To take an analogy: bad voice recognition software abounds everywhere, not because it is better than what it replaced in terms of UX, but because it works just enough and allows massive cost-savings on hiring people to do customer service jobs. A world where most marketing copy is written by med…

There's also the fundamental problem of AI-generated content "polluting" the training data, right?

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#240

Post by nordsieck »

JCharante wrote: post #228
svachalek wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's old fashioned. Newer systems I've dealt with just say "sorry, I can't understand you, please try again later" and hang up.

Related to this, I've had to call an airline and get told the queue is too long and to try calling back later. I have no idea who thought that was a good idea to implement because the queue will always be super long.

> Related to this, I've had to call an airline and get told the queue is too long and to try calling back later. I have no idea who thought that was a good idea to implement because the queue will always be super long.

It's 100% internal metrics.

When I was in the military, there was some metric that the clinic was graded on - I think it was number of days between when an appointment was made and when the visit happened. So the clinics just didn't allow unimportant people to make appointments more than 2 weeks out.

Post reply on HN