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

321–330 of 363 posts

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#321

Post by Oxidation »

KevinGlass wrote: post #68
Mechanical9 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, that hasn't been my experience, at least not yet. Are you talking about newer movies and shows?

Sometime last year, someone published a guide on auto-generating subtitles using an emacs plugin and WhisperAI. A lot of anime release groups use it so they can get an English subtitled version of a show released a couple hours after it airs in Japan. It's nice to have access sooner, especially for less popular shows that might never get any kind of release outside of Japan, but it's a lot worse then most fan subs an…

Lots of Chinese dramas with barely-parseable subtitles as well. Missing sections, and completely wrong contextual glosses, which are particularly easy to get horribly wrong in Chinese.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#322

Post by mantas »

mixedCase wrote: post #249
analog31 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society was awash in music for centuries before recording and radio.

If by "awash" you mean "significantly less present in regular people's life by orders of magnitude", then yes. Not to mention the degree of control over what music is actually being played.

It wasn't significantly less present. Singing yourself was just a given. During work, at celebrations etc. It gave full control as well.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#323

Post by jredwards »

sumtechguy wrote: post #294
mongol wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor quality furniture of 100 years ago is no longer around.

It is called survivorship bias. For example I can look back to 80s NES games. Some of those games are very good. But I would say 80% of the total catalog were either very bland or just outright bad. Most consumer type goods have this issue. In 30 years we will look back at this time and say 'they dont make XYZ like they used to' then point at the cream of the crop of whatever genre XYZ is in for this year. Just remem…

You make a good point, but your dates on Leonard ('87) and Shawshank ('94) are a little off.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#324

Post by fnordpiglet »

nordsieck wrote: post #29
_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…

> 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. This one really puzzles me. Voice recognition replaced phone trees. And from what I can tell, it's just worse. In this particular use case I don't think it really replaced tier 1 support. Eithe…

This feature has nothing to do with lower costs and everything to do with the management chain in customer service taking a victory lap for adding voice recognition to the phone tree. Lowering cost is certainly how they justify it, and they also just get credit for being modern and keeping their systems up to date with current trends. The actual reality of whether it actually saves anything or has any positive benefit is immeasurable and irrelevant.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#325

Post by fnordpiglet »

101008 wrote: post #22

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 actually prefer the original paragraph. It reads like you wrote it, you being you the person. The second feels entirely sterile and generic.

I am not worried about whether chatgpt would hallucinate as I’m sure you read the responses and I know it’s easier for me to read and listen in a foreign language than compose.

By the way, I think you’re doing an amazing thing here taking the technology and making a profoundly useful tool out of it. By reading its revision you can get corrections and pointers. I use chatgpt similarly but in other domains. It’s not always “right,” but it’s close enough to point me in directions I wasn’t aware of before.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#326

Post by dv_dt »

alkjsdlkjasd wrote: post #102
dv_dt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT is basically automated reversion to a slightly worse mean for applicable areas. The algos as sophisticated as they are produce a credible remix of the training input.

But just give it context about what you want it to write and it will write about it. Obviously this is much easier if you have an existing body of work but you can still write to ChatGPT clumsily and it will often turn what you are trying to say into better prose. My analogy is that it is to writing what the spell checker is to spelling. Very few people in the world have to be good at spelling anymore. Yeah everyone…

The question is how many times will it elevating bad prose vs removing opportunities to write great prose.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#327

Post by LegitShady »

a9h74j wrote: post #229
LegitShady wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats the same issue with dall-e, stable diffusion, or any of these, and the ML world seems to think its a win and artists don't deserve to have jobs if they can't compete with or become users of those models. If you can't get paid to produce art as a journeyman that supports your basic needs you won't make it to being a master artist except in your free time, maybe, and you won't have the same work references for wo…

Is "being on the slopes toward a singularity" locally distinguishable from "pulling up the ladders behind you"?

I don't think 'pulling up the ladders behind you' is an issue here at all. This isn't artists or writers pulling up the ladders here .

The ML experts who are making these systems aren't professional writers or professional artists. Industry is always convinced by automation and lower costs, and boards who make these decisions are senior professional management not creatives. Neither group ever cared about the ladder behind them in other industries or their own companies.

The question is one of what we want to accept as societal norms, or push for legislation of regulation. Personally I think the idea of banning such systems won't work, but all writing done by ChatGPT or other 'creative' work done by other ML models should be regulated such that it must be marked with a discloser that it is the product of a 'creative' machine learning model. Human authorship is an important distinction that needs to be clearly distinguished.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#328

Post by 93po »

hnarn wrote: post #266

It’s kind of like that South Park special about the “streaming wars” and the water parks. A swimming pool can have a certain amount of urine in it without anyone noticing, and that’s the way it’s always been. It’s not a problem as long as the amount is small and you add cleaning agents. The problem is that filling the web with content created by ChatGPT means adding more and more urine to the pool until someone notic…

To be fair, basically anything controversial on the internet is already, at minimum, subtly incorrect. Any given person's perspective on basically anything likely has at least one inaccuracy, or one mischaracterization, or one heavily biased take. I already can't trust virtually anything on the internet unless I really know someone, their credentials, their background, their biases, and also spend a lot of researching the topic myself.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#329

Post by fnordpiglet »

hosh wrote: post #224

My main concern isn't whether ChatGPT will kill off anything, like journalism. Instead, my concern is that this will create a Internet-wide echo chamber. I've seen what happens when an individual human enter a delusional feedback loop and diverge from reality, that pivotal moment when sensemaking becomes self-referential. They get a psychotic break. I think we're going to get front-row seats at watching a whole, plan…

I think the internet today has two modes, at least. One is commoditized content and the other is collaborative content. The commoditized content has long since been either automated or at least highly ripped off, and with chatgpt style AI it’ll probably improve dramatically to the point of being generally valuable and useful, even if it seems to offend people that a machine did something they did before (is this the White collar John Henry moment?). The collaborative stuff will continue to be there as it is because we genuinely like talking to other hairless monkeys. They will probably take “no AI” rules of discourse, along with their currently rules of stuff like “no soliciting or selling,” “no flaming,” “no jerks,” etc.

I for one welcome our new chatgpt overlords.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#330

Post by fnordpiglet »

staticman2 wrote: post #114
visarga wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. The internet is already full of shit sites, you can automate spam very easily in any quantity. But chatGPT would actually write useful texts, most of them more useful than the average blog post. Over a few years they might be just as good as the best human articles. Normal people could write a draft version and have chatGPT reword it, that would control the contents of the article. But I expect spam…

"But chatGPT would actually write useful texts, most of them more useful than the average blog post. Over a few years they might be just as good as the best human articles." If web sites start being written by A.I. and ChatGPT starts getting trained on A.I. output, it's going to start spewing garbage results. It's only useful if trained on human input, A.I. have no model of the world and no A.I. can function if train…

I think that only holds true if : 1) there’s no editorial influence on the chatgpt content - I.e., sanity checking. 2) humans decide they don’t like writing any more, which given how many humans like to write seems unlikely 3) the chatgpt echo chamber doesn’t reinforce non-garbage and resonates in some way that diverges to garbage

There’s also a weird assumption that humans don’t write a bunch of garbage as is.

Post reply on HN