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

331–340 of 363 posts

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#331

Post by anupamchugh »

I’d like to think of ChatGPT as computer generated content. It’s a reflection of the world we live in, and the tech culture too.

Everything is centralised right now. So disclosures, trust, transparency don’t mean anything. Atleast not on a web that we don’t own.

Also, since when have humans being transparent. We’re all data collectors as our brain is aggregating thoughts of others and those of our own and then sharing them with technologies.

Now that technology showed us the cons of a centralised system, it spooked plenty.

The future is reminiscent of Westworld, Dark, Matrix. Atleast on internet — where everything is code.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#332

Post by jstarfish »

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.

> 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.

A call deferred is a call denied.

Convincing the customer to give up is one way to reduce workload.

See also: automated systems that play a prerecorded message along the lines of "we're currently experiencing higher than normal call volume" regardless of how long wait times even are.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#333

Post by eatsyourtacos »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #244
eatsyourtacos wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been rewatching some Star Trek Voyager on paramount+ and there is no way a person did all the subtitles. It's like 98% accurate, I'll give it that. But there are enough glaring mistakes that there's just no way a person would have made those kind of mistakes and also they are easily catchable if a single person were to proofread.

Paramount+ sucks. If you try to play DS9 season 5 episode 1, it simply throws an error. So all legal option for watching that episode is gone. (I’m almost ashamed I watch Star Trek so often that I know this offhand…) The subtitles are literally the worst, short of being incomprehensible. Like so bad that until someone experiences them, you can’t really grok how terrible they are. They’re a solid D minus. Maybe it‘s a…

I agree Paramount+ is my least favorite streaming service. It never seems to remember what I was watching or where I am in an episode.

Subtitles are not something I normally have on since I know almost every word verbatim for stng and voyager... so maybe they are even worse than I realize!

I only pay for this service because I want to support my beloved star trek.. glad it's been getting some new life in recent years at least!

But yes.. it's sad that they have such a crappy service.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#334

Post by sireat »

amalcon wrote: post #92
KevinGlass wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That scene has long had the "janky but really fast translation" niche and the "good but takes a couple of days" niche. From what little I experienced of the former, people who cared about translation quality probably weren't using it anyway. I've been away from all that for rather a long time, so I don't know. Still, I'd guess these robo-subtitles are probably replacing the "fast and bad" niche. The "slow and good" n…

Looks like anime fansubbing scene has not changed much in the 30 years.

Back then there were multiple fansubber camps - notably Artic Animation which fell into "janky but really fast translation" releasing many shows and purist fansubbers who released maybe a few titles a year but with extremely high quality subs.

Then you had extremists who demanded no subs whatsoever and then those who preferred commercial dubs...

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#335

Post by mixedCase »

chimeracoder wrote: post #306
mixedCase wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was never talking about fast fashion. There's a huge swath of clothing items between "dirt-cheap, disintegrating crap" and "high quality clothing". Those articles of clothing I'm talking about are almost never worth mending, but they still can last for years.

> I was never talking about fast fashion. There's a huge swath of clothing items between "dirt-cheap, disintegrating crap" and "high quality clothing". It's all fast fashion, just different points along the line. Yes, broccoli and kale look different, and one is a fancier class signifier than the other, but at the end of the day they're still the same species.

> It's all fast fashion, just different points along the line.

So there's only high quality tailor-made clothes... and fast fashion?, of which there may be a spectrum that goes from something like "very fast fast fashion", all the way to "slow fast fashion"?

> Yes, broccoli and kale look different, and one is a fancier class signifier than the other, but at the end of the day they're still the same species.

So you're against... clothes? And possibly also agnostic when it comes to the existence of taste buds?

I'm sorry but your line of reasoning is making zero sense to me. This is getting to the point where I have to ask: Have you ever bought clothes yourself or does someone else buy them for you? Can you put into words of your own (without googling) what makes an article of clothing like a shirt not fast fashion?

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#336

Post by sandinmyjoints »

rfwhyte wrote: post #280
WillPostForFood wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more befuddling - they are replacing one automated system (button driven) with a worse automated system (voice driven). No one wins unless you still have a rotary phone.

The secret here is that for the majority of companies, the goal is not to support you as a customer effectively, but to rather minimize the amount of time spent organization wide supporting ALL customers. So to that end the automated systems are about frustrating customers to the point that they'll just "Go away" and the voice based systems are more frustrating than the button based ones, and infinitely more frustrat…

I've wondered why companies don't auction top places in line. If they're going to have people queuing, why not attempt to extract some money from them? Implementing such a system and selling it seems like a possible business idea for someone who believes this is a nicely utilitarian solution.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#337

Post by mb7733 »

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'm not that impressed with the ChatGPT output. I see one or two one routine grammar errors ChatGPT fixed for you, but overall its version reads worse than your original. (A regular grammar checker could catch these mistakes just as well.)

For example, it took your perfectly good:

>I am not a native English speaker (as many of you already noticed due to my grammar mistakes), ...

And replaced it with

> As a non-native English speaker (as many of you have likely noticed due to my grammar mistakes), ...

While a lot of native speakers would write something like this, it's awkward and incorrect. You didn't mean to say "As you may have noticed, as a non native speaker, blah blah", you meant to say "As you may have noticed, I am not a native speaker."

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#338

Post by staticman2 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #330
staticman2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I don't understand the claim that editorial influence will fix things when the above claim is Google can't distinguish between legit content and SEO garbage. Does google not have smart people working for them who can use editorial influence?

As to point 2 , the argument is that, like with google search results the dataset will be corrupted and get worse, not that it won't contain some human written prose, so that's irrelevant when you say humans will still write things.

Claim 3 seems to be an argument that we can solve the problem of machine learning being based on bad bots by throwing more bots at it, which seems to be a very Rube Goldberg proposal which I'm not sure will work.

Finally is the claim many humans are dumb, so the more chat bots that impersonate humans, the better I guess?

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#339

Post by ipaddr »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #273
ipaddr wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of the guy who built his own os but took 17 years so the UI is terrible but a few years ago he finally finished. Someone will but that person isn't following a typical or even sane life and the results will be brilliant messes.

Yeah but Terry had manic-depression, schizophrenia, and possibly God, on his side.

Reminds me of many great musicians

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#340

Post by avereveard »

criddell wrote: post #119
fhd2 wrote: post #79

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.

Your example is true only if you include the criteria that it be affordable. You can probably get any furniture you want made locally or by a highly skilled person far away who is willing to ship to you. 100 years ago, how much did the family dinner table cost? Would you measure it in hours or days of salary? When that family in 1923 went table shopping, they were either going to buy from a company like Sears Roebuck…

We have way less in the middle. A lot of super high end luxury stuff, a lot of very cheap affordable stuff.

There's a moat, and it's very evident just by looking at family pictures from the sixties and eighties.

Post reply on HN