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

381–390 of 444 posts

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#381

Post by daniel-cussen »

williamcotton wrote: post #113
petra wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "having all the necessary facts" mean?

Oh, for example: Me: "Hey, can you help me turn a baseball box score into an entertaining outline of the game?" GPT: Sure, I'd be happy to help you turn a baseball box score into a summary of the game! Can you provide the box score for me to use as reference? Me: Saturday, October 26, 1991 Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, Minneapolis, Minnesota Atlanta 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 – 3 9 1 Minnesota 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 – 4 9…

[dead]

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#382

Post by kilgnad »

busyant wrote: post #358
kilgnad wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes both ways but people usually take one extreme. You absolutely cannot deny the fact that chatGPT produces a lot of bullshit. But at the same time you absolutely cannot deny the fact that it produces a lot of real answers to very complex questions. Both the ability to make shit up and give real complex answers are amazing achievements. I think a lot of people haven't picked up on the fact that in both cases cha…

> I think a lot of people haven't picked up on the fact that in both cases chatGPT actually understands what you are telling it. This is something that I haven't seen mentioned yet. The stunning aspect of ChatGPT is that it seems to understand* the nuances of what I'm asking. Yes, sometimes it spews bullshit, but the bullshit is still trying to address my questions, no matter how odd. * I suspect that "understand" ma…

> I suspect that "understand" may not be the correct word here,

There's no other word for what's going on. The inputs and resulting outputs show something indistinguishable from understanding.

If we choose to define "understanding" as some deeper internal process well that's a deadend because we don't even know the meaning of the term "understanding" from the context of the human brain.

So more or less from the inputs and the outputs there's only one word that describes what's going on. It "understands" you.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#383

Post by JoshuaDavid »

flir wrote: post #175

I have a simple canary for ChatGPT correctness that I ask every time it's updated: "What can you tell me about Ice Cold In Alex?" / "Who did Sylvia Syms play?" I'm not expecting it to get the answer right (I don't think it has that information) but I'm hoping it'll eventually just admit it doesn't know instead of making up something plausible ("Sister Margaret Parker" last time I tried). As long as it doesn't know wh…

> As long as it doesn't know what it doesn't know, I'm inclined to think of it as a super-advanced Markov chain.

... that's basically what it is.

But that means that if you give it a context which looks like a part of the internet where people say "I don't know" when they don't know something, it will say "I don't know" in those situations (specifically the situations where people in the training set do not know things, not the situations where it does not know things). Sometimes this is close enough to what you want. Here's an example:

> Who did Tom Hanks play in the 1995 film "Apollo 13"? If you are unsure, say "I don't know".

> > Tom Hanks played the role of Jim Lovell in the 1995 film "Apollo 13".

> What year was the film "Ice Cold in Alex" released? If you are unsure, say "I don't know".

> > The film "Ice Cold in Alex" was released in 1958.

> Did Gilbert Harding play any roles in the 1958 film "Ice Cold in Alex"? If you are unsure, say "I don't know".

> > I don't know.

> Did Sylvia Syms play any roles in the 1958 film "Ice Cold in Alex"? If you are unsure, say "I don't know".

> > Yes, Sylvia Syms played a role in the 1958 film "Ice Cold in Alex".

> What role did Sylvia Syms play in the 1958 film "Ice Cold in Alex"? If you are unsure, say "I don't know".

> > Sylvia Syms played the role of "Nurse" in the 1958 film "Ice Cold in Alex".

> What was the name of the nurse that Sylvia Syms played in the 1958 film "Ice Cold in Alex"? If you are unsure, say "I don't know".

> > I don't know the specific name of the nurse that Sylvia Syms played in the 1958 film "Ice Cold in Alex".

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#384

Post by flir »

JoshuaDavid wrote: post #383
flir wrote: post #175

I have a simple canary for ChatGPT correctness that I ask every time it's updated: "What can you tell me about Ice Cold In Alex?" / "Who did Sylvia Syms play?" I'm not expecting it to get the answer right (I don't think it has that information) but I'm hoping it'll eventually just admit it doesn't know instead of making up something plausible ("Sister Margaret Parker" last time I tried). As long as it doesn't know wh…

> As long as it doesn't know what it doesn't know, I'm inclined to think of it as a super-advanced Markov chain. ... that's basically what it is. But that means that if you give it a context which looks like a part of the internet where people say "I don't know" when they don't know something, it will say "I don't know" in those situations (specifically the situations where people in the training set do not know thin…

That's interesting. Compare with my attempt:

> What can you tell me about Ice Cold In Alex?

>> [correct stuff]

> Who did Sylvia Syms play? Only answer if you are confident. If not, say "I don't know".

>> Sylvia Syms played the role of Nurse Katherine Ferns.

> How confident are you of that answer?

>> I am very confident of that answer.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#385

Post by qup »

unethical_ban wrote: post #244

Does anyone else have issue with having to provide a phone number to access it? I signed up, verified email, and then was told I needed to verify with phone. This means, to me, (lest I read their TOS) that they are associating any queries I make with my identity. I can't wait for this tech to go open source and local on devices.

> they are associating any queries I make with my identity

To be clear: yes, they absolutely are, and say so outright. You can get your account banned for some types of queries, etc. Much of their service is geared towards helping companies build gpt products so it seems to be no surprise.

I'm also very excited to get some good models that can run locally in the future.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#386

Post by [deleted] »

svachalek wrote: post #366
busyant wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think a lot of people haven't picked up on the fact that in both cases chatGPT actually understands what you are telling it. This is something that I haven't seen mentioned yet. The stunning aspect of ChatGPT is that it seems to understand* the nuances of what I'm asking. Yes, sometimes it spews bullshit, but the bullshit is still trying to address my questions, no matter how odd. * I suspect that "understand" ma…

The subtlety of its communication is fairly astonishing. "Digital assistants" from the world's biggest tech companies can respond to a few basic template questions and commands and tend to fall back on "here's a link to Wikipedia, chief". In the same day and age, ChatGPT can respond to a statement like "actually it's a cat" with "yes, my apologies for the error, [repeats a lot of stuff with corrections]". In the proc…

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#388

Post by freejazz »

raldi wrote: post #365
freejazz wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by self driving car you mean a car that can only drive itself after a programmer specifically resolves whichever breaking problem it had (which may or may not occur after your life has ended DUE to this very problem), then I guess they are here!

I’d say they’re here when the probability of being injured, at every level of severity, is less than that of a human driver, and the occasional “oops we’re stuck in a weird situation” problems (which happen to human taxis too) are similarly infrequent and tolerable enough that people consider the minuscule risk of inconvenience worth the ride.

It's not self driving if the programmer needs to fix it every time it makes a mistake. I don't think you got my point.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#389

Post by freejazz »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #362
freejazz wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can ask it how it came up with its answer and it will do it's best to give you an explanation. will it? or is it just going to start another chain of words it's trying to complete without any regard for its previous statements? My guess is that it's doing what I described and isn't doing what you described (because it can't).

Also not that far off from how humans behave sometimes. Reminds me of split brain studies. Iirc they got human brains to confidently explain reasons for fictional past behavior.

It might coincidentally be how a human brain behaves, but I made this same point upthread. It's misplaced to think that because we aren't sure exactly what happens when a human thinks, that thinking is what chatGPT does. One has nothing to do with the other.

Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time

#390

Post by freejazz »

worik wrote: post #342
freejazz wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly my posts were and it's a mystery as to what point you think you are achieving by trying to debate something with me that I was never discussing

Hire a lawyer Directly addresses your concerns This thread started out on cover letters

Okay but I posted about the examples of chatGPT giving legal advice, so there's something you fundamentally don't seem to be grasping about the pointlessness of you talking to me about resumes.
Post reply on HN