Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

tedgioia.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 444 posts

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#301

Post by freejazz »

hospadar wrote: post #112

I wonder if the biggest shortcoming of GPT right now is not that it sometimes gets things wrong, or can't cite its sources, or whatever - maybe it needs to learn when to say "I don't know the answer to that question". That's a pretty hard thing for most humans (and myself) to learn to say, and I suspect GPT's training data (tha internet) doesn't include a lot of "I'm not sure" language and probably does include a lot…

>"I wonder if the biggest shortcoming of GPT right now is not that it sometimes gets things wrong, or can't cite its sources, or whatever "

It surprises me that people, here no less, seem to not realize that chatGPT has literally no idea what it's doing or saying. It's just trying to find the next word. It has no regard or understanding for what the word means. In response to this, people here just reflexively question what happens when a human is thinking, but I don't see that as a basis to assume that means chatGPT is thinking.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#302

Post by worik »

freejazz wrote: post #283
iinnPP wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used ChatGPT to write cover letters and to create job specific resumes(with an additional tool). Then those documents resulted in employment. I had to edit some, and I went over all of them. I have to assume people look at the thing they understand may be inaccurate (because you can't possibly miss THAT fact) and give it at least a quick once over. Lacking that, it's a failure of the person, not the tool.

How are you going to tell if it accurately analyzed a legal document if you don't know how to accurately analyze a legal document? It's a tool that's being sold for jobs it shouldn't be doing, if that's the characterization that helps you understand the issue and not turn this into "blaming the tool for something it shouldn't be doing"

[flagged]

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#303

Post by freejazz »

worik wrote: post #302
freejazz wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to tell if it accurately analyzed a legal document if you don't know how to accurately analyze a legal document? It's a tool that's being sold for jobs it shouldn't be doing, if that's the characterization that helps you understand the issue and not turn this into "blaming the tool for something it shouldn't be doing"

[flagged]

Perhaps you have issues with reading comprehension? This is a thread about how chatGPT is being sold as a service to analyze legal documents, and it quite obviously fails at that. If your solution is to see a lawyer you are making my point that chatGPT is not helpful for this thing that people are saying chatGPT is helpful for.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#304

Post by iinnPP »

freejazz wrote: post #283
iinnPP wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used ChatGPT to write cover letters and to create job specific resumes(with an additional tool). Then those documents resulted in employment. I had to edit some, and I went over all of them. I have to assume people look at the thing they understand may be inaccurate (because you can't possibly miss THAT fact) and give it at least a quick once over. Lacking that, it's a failure of the person, not the tool.

How are you going to tell if it accurately analyzed a legal document if you don't know how to accurately analyze a legal document? It's a tool that's being sold for jobs it shouldn't be doing, if that's the characterization that helps you understand the issue and not turn this into "blaming the tool for something it shouldn't be doing"

Ask and verify or integrate with a tool that cuts the inaccuracies out. Sometimes that is not possible.

There are plenty of pieces of the legal system that would benefit, today, from adding a well-made ChatGPT process. Perhaps not perfectly, in such a flawed system.

As an example, ChatGPT could assess the actions leading to a charge and compare the law to the actions of an individual.

Before you bash the idea, I happen to know of a case where ChatGPT outperformed the US Federal government in this analysis.

1 success is worth the cost.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#305

Post by worik »

bsaul wrote: post #288
gunshai wrote: post #49

My stance is pretty simple. The folks that adapt their own language centers and domain reasoning around using chatGPT (or these types of models) will stand to gain the most out of using them. This article is an eye roll to me, a calculator gives you confidence as well, doesn't mean you used it correctly. It is very hard for me to not outright dismiss articles like this that don't consider the usefulness of the tool.…

You're confounding the problem of feeding a system with incorrect inputs ( calculator ), with a system that, provided the input are correct, will throw garbage totally at random. This is a very different kind of system with very different kinds of problems caused to its users.

And you have missed the point. To be a liar requires creativity

This a computer. Creative. This is huge.

The most astounding thing is its ability to con you.

We will learn to use it. Hydraulics for cognition. Amazing

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#306

Post by fortituded0002 »

gunshai wrote: post #49

My stance is pretty simple. The folks that adapt their own language centers and domain reasoning around using chatGPT (or these types of models) will stand to gain the most out of using them. This article is an eye roll to me, a calculator gives you confidence as well, doesn't mean you used it correctly. It is very hard for me to not outright dismiss articles like this that don't consider the usefulness of the tool.…

I have the same overall reaction. But suspect that your analogy with the calculator to distract some people reading this. Difference being that one is user input error and the other is either ChatGPT misunderstanding what's being asked or just lacking training data and presenting an answer that's incorrect.

By yes, an eye roll from me as well. A few months back I heard the horror stories about how a bot answers with confidence and now it's the main complaint in articles about why it's busted and dangerous. It doesn't bring anything new to the table and doesn't push the conversation forward in any way.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#307

Post by worik »

freejazz wrote: post #303
worik wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Perhaps you have issues with reading comprehension? This is a thread about how chatGPT is being sold as a service to analyze legal documents, and it quite obviously fails at that. If your solution is to see a lawyer you are making my point that chatGPT is not helpful for this thing that people are saying chatGPT is helpful for.

> Perhaps you have issues with reading comprehension? This is a thread about how chatGPT is being sold as a service to analyze legal documents

No it is not

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#308

Post by partiallypro »

ChatGPT is good for some things, it's not very good for others. If you're writing a paper on a controversial topic, you're going to get a one sided and biased answer; and it will be written like a HS freshman. If you're asking something straight forward, you'll have a better experience. Some people have said they've gotten it to diagnose something, but I've tried and failed at getting it to do such a thing. I do think there is a massive over reaction to its usefulness, but it is a powerful tool to have, nevertheless.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#309

Post by freejazz »

iinnPP wrote: post #304
freejazz wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to tell if it accurately analyzed a legal document if you don't know how to accurately analyze a legal document? It's a tool that's being sold for jobs it shouldn't be doing, if that's the characterization that helps you understand the issue and not turn this into "blaming the tool for something it shouldn't be doing"

Ask and verify or integrate with a tool that cuts the inaccuracies out. Sometimes that is not possible. There are plenty of pieces of the legal system that would benefit, today, from adding a well-made ChatGPT process. Perhaps not perfectly, in such a flawed system. As an example, ChatGPT could assess the actions leading to a charge and compare the law to the actions of an individual. Before you bash the idea, I happ…

Wow what an amazing and impossible to argue against anecdote that defies any examples I've seen.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#310

Post by aaron695 »

cribbles wrote: post #58

I would greatly appreciate a moratorium on this genre of article until there is compelling accompanying evidence that a meaningful portion of ChatGPT's users are unaware of these shortcomings. I have yet to encounter or even hear of a non-technical person playing around with ChatGPT without stumbling into the type of confidently-stated absurdities and half-truths displayed in this article, and embracing that as a lim…

[dead]
Post reply on HN