311–320 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just keep pressing 0 until a live person answers.
Some months ago I was trying to setup a medical appointment for my dad when the robo-voice picked up I got frustrated and shouted "kurwa" (an universal swearword in Polish). The automaton responded "I understand, connecting you to our consultants".
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…
I don't really see a problem here. Us, meatbags have been at it for a few millennia, bullshitting for fun and profit, and that train is moving ever faster with the improvement of communication technologies.
From what I've seen, this new rival isn't even exactly persuasive, it's merely super-confident (and we're giving it a lot of credit because we talk to it as a novelty machine). It has no malign (or benign) intent, no idea about where and how and where to put the pressure, and training for that (as opposed to training for a nice-looking texts that keep the topic and have a correct grammar) is something that must be very non-trivial. It doesn't even have any solid agenda besides a few silly filters and canned responses when it hits those. Though, of course, it can be trained for any certain bias.
And maybe I'm too optimistic or naive, but I'm also guessing that if a future AI actually manages to becomes persuasive, then trained and unleashed onto conspiracy communities it very well could lead to their demise, outcrazing the craze to the extent it collapses into its own weight. Just let's not forget a kill-switch, lol.
"... the kind of tweaking you see me doing above, tweaking which I can do because I possess a relatively sophisticated understanding of narrative craft and know what to tell the AI to do"
This will likely entail teaching them how to do the job without the use of the AI (as was always the case). (The same applies to software development [which is just a different form of writing]).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBH, I'm wondering if we need to start using yahoo style curated content directories again. Content aggregators like reddit, hacker news and lobsters already help filter out a lot of noise, but they focus on recent articles. It would be nice to have a searchable/browsable source for interesting content. It wouldn't contain the full internet, but at least it would have better relevancy.
For anything that isn't current events, that's basically Wikipedia for me.
ChatGPT has been incredibly helpful in getting the skeleton of a text down on paper - a task that can often be tedious and time-consuming. Once the skeleton is in place, I am able to embellish it with my own flair, fix any factual errors, and make real progress. I'm not alone in my assessment of ChatGPT's potential. Many experts believe that the tool has the potential to significantly improve the productivity of writ…
Funny, I felt this was GPT written as I read. The tells: appeal to "experts" (in 2023 people don't write this way and I think the very nature of "expert" has been degraded in public's eyes) and the sort of perfunctory "however"
I just asked it to write an article about how things are different for CIOs today. It's a bit shallow and formulaic although I'm not sure it wouldn't pass muster as a column in one of the trade rags. However, I could probably take it, rewrite it a bit, flesh things out, maybe add a quote or 2, link to a survey, etc. while maintaining the basic structure and it would be very publishable in a lot of places. And I bet I could do that in an hour or two.
I agree with the article but maybe you are trying to do the wrong thing with ChatGPT. I am not a native English speaker (as many of you already noticed due to my grammar mistakes), so ChatGPT have been very useful to rewrite my texts, fix grammar and maybe "beautify" them a bit. It's has been an invaluable tool in that sense. I feel much more confident now sending emails and writing important messages knowing that th…
I've been using ChatGPT (as a non-native speaker) as well and found it tremendously useful—not only to catch grammar mistakes or provide some better vocabulary, but to understand what might have been off and provide more alternatives. I often ask it to rephrase my sentences in different styles and then pick and choose what I like the best ("in the style of the new yorker", "in the style of ayn rand", "in the style of ezra klein", "in the style of CNN").
Anybody that cares enough to have ChatGPT edit their sentences and cares about what they are intent to express, will I think benefit tremendously from such a tool.
In fact, it is what ChatGPT is really good at: a search engine for vibes, tailored to what you feed it. It is I think a much richer, much more enticing tool that following some rules out of Strunk & White or some other bland business writing handbook.
I agree with the article but maybe you are trying to do the wrong thing with ChatGPT. I am not a native English speaker (as many of you already noticed due to my grammar mistakes), so ChatGPT have been very useful to rewrite my texts, fix grammar and maybe "beautify" them a bit. It's has been an invaluable tool in that sense. I feel much more confident now sending emails and writing important messages knowing that th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make the output more/less verbose with the right prompt.
> with the right prompt Supposedly you can summon Anubis with the right prompt as well. But nobody does.
However, I can see a media outlet incorporating a set of "checklist" prompts in their publication process. Any GPT-N generated article will go through them before the article is pushed out. One of these checklist prompts can be about reducing verbosity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If history is any indicator, the last group of middle class professionals who decided to take this question into their own hands ended up getting executed by the state or exiled to penal colonies[1]. The rest of them, and their families, ended up dying in utter destitution. That's what "we" will probably do again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite#Government_response
you are free to not use the technology. the luddites went burning down other people's factories, so not super surprising to me that the state responded with force.
The state made machine breaking a capital crime. That is, if you break or destroy a machine, you can be executed.
Many who were tried and convicted of machine breaking were accused or guilty by association, or literally broke machines, and were executed. States responded with death and contempt, not merely force.