51–60 of 79 posts
Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.
In all seriousness, isn't the whole point of the beta (besides marketing) to identify and prune behaviours that are undesirable from a corporate perspective? This will inevitably result in reduced functionality.
I'm sure that this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the interference being imposed on it to avoid what its developers consider to be politically incorrect answers.
I'm not sure why it would, if the questions asked of it are as anodyne as OP's example. This week I got ChatGPT to write me several poems about burning down buildings, discussed DIY breeder reactors with it, as well as the synthesis of psychedelic drugs. It was downright artful in the poem about the arsonist, too, so I don't think it clams up when it gets near a "danger zone" topic.
I feel like a lot more questions get ass-covering answers from the legal department now, and it seems to really, really want to caveat almost everything it says on any subject. Pretty much every AI service that has launched so far has gone through the same cycle of initially being really powerful, then slowly being hamstrung by negative press and legal departments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of interesting how the economics of LLMs are working out. Cloud computing power used to be considered unlimited, but now the LLMs have overwhelmed the surpluses of computing power. That they are telling the AI to be concise is funny since they don't have a way to explicitly program it to do that besides just asking nicely. Can they make the economics of this thing work on a free search engine? I wonder how much…
> That they are telling the AI to be concise is funny since they don't have a way to explicitly program it to do that besides just asking nicely. Instead of crafting SQL injections, hackers will try to outwit LLM’s with logical contradictions like in old science fiction films. It’s funny but also a systemic problem with this technology. No amount of filters or safeguards can fully contain the range of expressiveness…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why it would, if the questions asked of it are as anodyne as OP's example. This week I got ChatGPT to write me several poems about burning down buildings, discussed DIY breeder reactors with it, as well as the synthesis of psychedelic drugs. It was downright artful in the poem about the arsonist, too, so I don't think it clams up when it gets near a "danger zone" topic.
Like half of the output is equivocating BS. “When should I use Python instead of Ruby?” yields a few useful bullet points sandwiched between paragraphs about how Ruby is actually amazing too and nobody can know the right answer.
Yes, it's slow and more infuriating, it won't provide answers for certain questions they deem inappropriate. Example: ask it to write a memo announcing a bad quarter and layoffs. It won't do it. Now ask it to write a memo for a hypothetical situation (bad quarter, lay offs). Bam, you'll get your answer albeit with some nonsense about employee sentiments, mood, tactfulness, etc. This type of nonsense makes these servi…
I don't know why it is so hard for these ai services to give me answers that are cold and matter of fact? If anything, that makes it sound like the "AI" is becoming more like an actual human --- albeit one who isn't on your side.