I actually think the more people use it the better it gets over time, they would use user feedback into it and make it better, I am afraid google releases a much better tool in Google.io though, just don't tell anyone.
ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
181–190 of 444 posts
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ChatGPT’s output might not be as good as the best writing, but most of what people read is mediocre content with questionable accuracy. I agree with this, but I think we may be missing the point. Why are people reading mediocre content with questionable accuracy? The problem is not: how to quickly and cheaply create content which is marginally less mediocre and marginally more accurate than what we currently have.
> Why are people reading mediocre content with questionable accuracy? For most people that consume content, accurate information is not a priority. Being entertained, belonging to a group, or satisfying some immediate need or want matter more for most people, most of the time. It's doubtful that people who consume content will change their wants to prize accuracy (most of the time). Partly, this is because accurate,…
>> The problem is not: how to quickly and cheaply create content which is marginally less mediocre and marginally more accurate than what we currently have
> this sounds like exactly the arms race that content creators are engaged in until it stops paying
I don't think they're trying to achieve these things at all. Look at the broken incentives you raised in the first part of your response, that's what this is about, and all this is about.
Content creators mostly don't care about how mediocre their output is, and they mostly don't care about how accurate it is either, as long as the clicks keep coming.
We don't need (and can't expect) ChatGPT to "fix" this, the underlying problem is the broken incentives, not the actual quality - or lack of it - in the content.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#183I can't tell what is worse now: the sycophantic ChatGPT hype guys/gals who write articles "it's coming for all of our jerbs!", or articles like this one that deliberately misuse ChatGPT and then say "it's overhyped". They're both missing the point. Yes, ChatGPT can be tricked, confidently give wrong answers, but it is still ludicrously useful. It is basically like having an incredibly smart engineer/scientists/philos…
> It is basically like having an incredibly smart engineer/scientists/philosopher/etc It is a copy/paste machine that strings together words to make sentences that look like sentences it’s read. So it’s like an incredibly smart engineer/scientist/philosopher that does not and fundamentally cannot understand any of those concepts (or any concepts at all.) A parrot that can recite Macbeth’s monologue is not a s Shakesp…
[deleted]
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words, everyone should assume that it's lying at all times. Nobody should be using a product that both lies to you and then lies to you about the fact that it's lying to you.
Stating a falsehood without intent to deceive is just incorrectness, not a "lie". Let's dial the hyperbole back a few notches.
If the people running the platform are advertising a product that produces truths while delivering falsehoods and pathetically refusing to label their falsehoods as falsehoods, that's a lie.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#185I can't tell what is worse now: the sycophantic ChatGPT hype guys/gals who write articles "it's coming for all of our jerbs!", or articles like this one that deliberately misuse ChatGPT and then say "it's overhyped". They're both missing the point. Yes, ChatGPT can be tricked, confidently give wrong answers, but it is still ludicrously useful. It is basically like having an incredibly smart engineer/scientists/philos…
> Does this "person" make mistakes? Can't cite their sources?
Making citations up is not a "mistake", it's a lie. I have absolutely no use for a tool which lies to me, especially not when troubleshooting computer systems.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is basically like having an incredibly smart engineer/scientists/philosopher/etc that can explain things quite well, but for pretty much every field. No. You've fallen for exactly the con the article is describing. ChatGPT knows nothing . It is very good at generating text that seems plausible if you know nothing about the subject matter, but is not reliable as an actual source of information . If you happened t…
So frustrating to see people complain that it provides wrong information. With this logic it can never know anything. It is not made for querying. It's made to complete the text you provide it, with some minor modifications to help it answer questions. It does know the most common patterns of characters in the internet which implicitly contain knowledge.
> With this logic it can never know anything.
That's correct: ChatGPT does not know anything. That's not what it's built to do.
> It does know the most common patterns of characters in the internet which implicitly contain knowledge.
No, it doesn't. It knows patterns of text in its training data, but it knows nothing about the semantics of the text--its relationship to other things in the world, which is what is involved with any text that contains knowledge. That is why ChatGPT is not reliable as a source of information.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stating a falsehood without intent to deceive is just incorrectness, not a "lie". Let's dial the hyperbole back a few notches.
If the people running the platform are advertising a product that produces truths while delivering falsehoods and pathetically refusing to label their falsehoods as falsehoods, that's a lie.
There is a bit right on the chat box above every conversation that says, verbatim, "may occasionally generate incorrect information".
Determining truth is not in the wheelhouse of a language learning model and it is not defective for not doing so in the same way a tablesaw is not defective for not driving nails. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno, I recently learned about how the Toyota Synergy Drive system works in detail. Despite being the type of person who'd be interested in that kind of thing I thought it was not generally well understood, I've only come across one website which described it in detail. I asked ChatGPT about it and it game me a fairly surface level answer. I then asked it for more details and it went into detail far beyond what th…
That's exactly the wrong sort of thing to turn to ChatGPT for. In probing it for more detail, you're giving it increasingly helpful hints on how to answer your questions in a way that makes you satisfied, regardless of accuracy. That's what it's optimized to do. And because you're working from a humble and curious understanding of the topic yourself, it can and will make up all sorts of things that make you believe i…
If you're able to validate the results though (so they logically fit together, or with that newfound vocabulary and pseudounderstanding can you search for that information elsewhere), is that really such a bad thing? I've been doing exactly that to quickly ramp up on some new numerical algorithms I previously didn't know existed.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#189I can't tell what is worse now: the sycophantic ChatGPT hype guys/gals who write articles "it's coming for all of our jerbs!", or articles like this one that deliberately misuse ChatGPT and then say "it's overhyped". They're both missing the point. Yes, ChatGPT can be tricked, confidently give wrong answers, but it is still ludicrously useful. It is basically like having an incredibly smart engineer/scientists/philos…
What people also seem to forget (if they knew in the first place) is how bad GPT3 was compared to GPT4/ChatGPT. I subscribe to SubSimulatorGPT3 on Reddit and it generates tons of text that looks and feels like English, for example, but is devoid of any real meaning. Every sentence, every paragraph I read from GPT3 has me questioning whether or not I’ve had a stroke. Now, compare that to your comment, and it’s INSANE…
GPT4 hasn't been released yet. I think you're probably thinking of GPT3.5.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#190I can't tell what is worse now: the sycophantic ChatGPT hype guys/gals who write articles "it's coming for all of our jerbs!", or articles like this one that deliberately misuse ChatGPT and then say "it's overhyped". They're both missing the point. Yes, ChatGPT can be tricked, confidently give wrong answers, but it is still ludicrously useful. It is basically like having an incredibly smart engineer/scientists/philos…
> It is basically like having an incredibly smart engineer/scientists/philosopher/etc that can explain things quite well, but for pretty much every field.
No it can not explain anything. It's a (stochastic) parrot, nothing more.
> Yep, but it is such an incredibly useful tool
It is not. You are fooling yourself. You are building a castle on a swamp.