431–440 of 444 posts
much of the response in such scenarios is heavily influenced by the training data and not the llm creating phrases from thin air.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not lying about the fact that it lies, they have a disclaimer. It's the user's responsibility to verify truth. This was trained on the internet and everyone knows not to believe everything you see on the internet. This isn't any different.
And you don't see how this makes it useless as a paid product? Truth is the product. An AI chatbot that makes no pretensions to the truth might as well be a Markov chain for all the good it does me. Are people really so blinded by the song and dance of this mechanical monkey that they can't see through the ruse?
For a lot of people it's a faster way to google something you're familiar with, a more convenient stackoverflow.
When used right its hallucinations don't matter, and the user takes advantage of producing things quickly that would have been tedious to write manually. Like one-off shell scripts.
If your use case necessitates truth then I see why you don't think it's worth paying for.
However this is the only digital product I'm paying a subscription for. It's faster than googling and trudging between useless results, ads, and useless blog content, so it's worth every cent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can tell you why I dislike ChatGPT, it's because it's not trustworthy. Somebody that is not well versed in the subject cannot distinguish the hallucinations of the machine, and for somebody that is well versed, they are better served by a rubber duck that doesn't lead them astray
Except there’s an entire thread of people saying it’s useful. No one is trusting it implicitly, but I work with a bunch of folks that are pretty good at what they do but aren’t infallible and I do have to verify a lot of what they do and say. I don’t dislike them for it, they’re human. Why when it’s a machine that’s largely accurate but sometimes hallucinates it’s a perceived failure, while these folks I work with ke…
Personally I find it useless to see a machine as a colleague when it is not better in any way then a colleague, in the same way I don't see a hammer as a very punchy workmate. If I want to have a conversation about something I'll go talk to a human, when I interrogate a database I expect it to be better then a random human.
I had a detailed conversion with chatGPT about how to gracefully handle terminating conditions of a rust program. It summarized cogently to register at_exit()’s for each thread, panic handlers, and register signal handlers. It advised and explain in detail on my query about the thread handling for each of these variants, gave really helpful advice on collecting join handles in a closure on the main thread and waiting…
Both package and component are made up bullshit, I kid you not. Did you try to actually code and test those graceful termination parts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there is nothing similar about the behavior. You are jumping to the conclusion based upon an absence of evidence. >I can’t trust GPT but I can’t trust my uncle or my in-laws or the media either. So? I don't ask my uncle for legal advice, and he isn't owned by a company and is being offered for his legal advice?
How is there nothing similar about the behavior? The whole premise of this thread is that there are similarities. If you wanna get off that train now, then peace. > So? I don't ask my uncle for legal advice, and he isn't owned by a company and is being offered for his legal advice? So? You think there aren't plenty of human lawyers who offer questionable/flawed legal advice? I'm not saying it's not worthy of criticis…
They can be disbarred. Your AI can't.
>When building an email service we can expect godlike perfection.
That's certainly not a standard I've been advocating for.
> What's interesting is the AI approaching behavior akin to living beings, whether that's animal, toddler, mentally disabled, or adult level intelligence/behavior.
You are just anthropomorphizing.
> Remember humans also confabulate: confidently fabricate memories and explanations post-hoc.
What does that have to do with ChatGPT at all? It's a post-hoc rationalization of chatGPT's own lack of explanation. Just because it's not clear how humans think, doesn't mean that the same thing is happening in ChatGPT just because we aren't clear on that either.
>Also remember that some great minds have entertained the "Language of Thought hypothesis", long before computers, which takes language as the building blocks of thought, so is it really that surprising that people are drawing parallels between a machine that uses language as it's building blocks of behavior and human behavior?
Yeah, because ChatGPT doesn't exhibit human behaviors, at all.
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…
Here's an ACM blogger that was taken in by ChatGPT https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34473783 If you know math, you immediately recognize that a smallest degree polynomial that has values 0,1,4,9,16,25,35 at 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 respectively is f(x) = x x - x (x-1) (x-2) (x-3) (x-4) (x-5)/720 So you know that f(n)=n (n+1) (2*n+1)/6 won't work and ChatGPT is bullshiting you.
There's nothing preventing it from involving RLHF
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is there nothing similar about the behavior? The whole premise of this thread is that there are similarities. If you wanna get off that train now, then peace. > So? I don't ask my uncle for legal advice, and he isn't owned by a company and is being offered for his legal advice? So? You think there aren't plenty of human lawyers who offer questionable/flawed legal advice? I'm not saying it's not worthy of criticis…
>So? You think there aren't plenty of human lawyers who offer questionable/flawed legal advice? I'm not saying it's not worthy of criticism for specific use-cases or output quality, but that's not really what this thread is about. They can be disbarred. Your AI can't. >When building an email service we can expect godlike perfection. That's certainly not a standard I've been advocating for. > What's interesting is the…
Why not? That seems to be lacking imagination. There's all sorts of regulation that can be brought to bear.
> Yeah, because ChatGPT doesn't exhibit human behaviors, at all.
You can think so, but others disagree. Here is where the thread started.
> The more I work with LLMs, the more I think of them as plagiarization engines. > We're all kind of plagiariztion engines.
If you don't see any similarities others see, then further discussion is fruitless.
> ChatGPT doesn't exhibit human behaviors, at all.
Chat is a behavior humans do. It chats, and pretty damn well. Clearly you mean something else then what you are explicitly saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the PI approach still requires that the agents in the game have a shared internal model of the game. You can make Searle's Chinese Room argument, but I always find "assume there exists a book that contains every conversation ever" as a flawed premise.
Well, if there've been about 120B humans ever, and we speak fewer than 1B words per lifetime, and the average word takes 1 byte to store, that's about a fifth of all data stored in AWS (according to Wolfram Alpha). It's undoubtedly a lot, and yet clearly within human capability. And of course that ignores optimizations that'd certainly drop that high estimate by many orders of magnitude.
It would be able to handle the following exchange:
Person: "Here's a cool question, ready?" Room: "Ready." Person: "What was the last message I sent to you?"
It can respond appropriately to the following sentence:
Person: "Hey, I'm gonna say something. Here is a sentence. Can you repeat the previous sentence back to me?"
Otherwise, why bother with all of this AI stuff? Just build Searle's Chinese Room as an index and you have a perfect chatbot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, yesterday I just told it to write a Dockerfile for me, with exactly what I wanted. instead of changing anything by hand, I told it what to fix, without telling it how to. Took 20-30 follow-up messages, telling it to add things, remove things, fix things, make things compatible with the versions of software it was running etc. It worked. Running the container now, works great.
> Took 20-30 follow-up messages, telling it to add things, remove things, fix things, make things compatible with the versions of software it was running etc. So in other words you basically spent just as much time and effort as if you did it yourself?
Yeah we can all write this stuff by hand but it's incredibly exciting; when it first came out I was asking it to write snippets of JS for stuff, additions, removals, asking it to write unit tests and then update them when the overall code changed and it maintained several different "threads" of conversation all related to a singular exercise just fine. Sure it's not perfect, but it's kind of cool having a super junior dev who happens to have instant access to most documentation around at the time in its head.