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

We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

danmcquillan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 425 posts

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#351

Post by roncesvalles »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #324
chrismcb wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But... With books you know who is publishing them. You might know who is in charge of a website. At least with Wikipedia sources are cited. With gpt, nothing.

Just had a dinner conversation where ChatGPT was characterized as automated plagiarism, and then I thought wouldn’t it be cool to get like a set of BibTex entries for all the sources whose content were combined to synthesize an output. Not sure that’s possible, and even if so, that it would be any kind of reasonable or manageable size whatsoever.

You'd see hallucination in the citations too. Ultimately, you can't get away from having to manually verify everything that an LLM outputs.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#352

Post by tambourine_man »

orwin wrote: post #350
tambourine_man wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve spent many years with infants and learned 3 languages aside from my mother tongue. I don’t find it self-evident at all. You’re gonna need to elaborate why you think so if you’re willing to convince someone.

That the idea form before it's vocalized? A three year old reaching toward any toy, then saying 'mine!'. Stumbling on a specific word, stopping your sentence, then proceed to replace it with a combination of words. Or any time you paraphrase basically.

Not true in my experience. To me, words come first, the idea is a consequence I realize after a few of them have been stringed together.

Knowing where the words come from, how “the brain” knows the next one before my conscious self does has always been a mystery to me. I’ve heard Sam Harris describing a similar feeling in his podcast.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#353

Post by tambourine_man »

peterth3 wrote: post #329
tambourine_man wrote: post #121

I’ve seen this argument over and over again: it’s just predicting the next word, it’s not creating anything new, etc. How do we know we’re not doing the same or similar in our brains? We can’t even define creativity, intelligence, let alone tell how it works. Predicting the next word is very much part of an intelligent discourse. What if it’s all just a “computational guessing game” all the way down with perhaps a sp…

How well GPTZero can detect ChatGPT generated text by measuring perplexity (how random the words choices are) and burstiness (how diverse the sentence structure is) shows that whatever algorithm our brain uses has stronger creative capabilities than this LLM. GPT-3.5 isn’t a great writer like AlphaGo is a great go player. Maybe one day AI will generate better scripts and novels than humans, but not this model. Medium…

From what I’ve read, LLM can’t reliably detect itself.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#354

Post by stefap2 »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #136
efitz wrote: post #102

The BS that ChatGPT generates is especially odious because it requires so much effort to detect if you're not a SME in whatever output it's giving. Plus, the output, when wrong, is subtly wrong- it's usually not obvious BS, it's credible BS. If you are not competent in the particular area you're asking about, you likely don't have the skills to recognize BS. It also is a time saver, doing work that most people find u…

>if you're not a SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise? What's SME in this instance?

Subject Matter Expert

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#355

Post by pnt12 »

tambourine_man wrote: post #223
root_axis wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't speak for what's "all the way down", but on whatever level humans perform reflective reasoning, it's self-evident that we don't simply "predict the next word" in the way a LLM does. Whether or not a LLM is capable of "creating anything new" is a different argument altogether. "New" is in eye of the beholder and it is often said that nothing is new under the sun, but we already know that unthinking processes w…

Please provide evidence that intelligent speech isn’t simply predicting the next word, as it’s obviously not self-evident to me.

You're asking for the evidence of a non existing factor in a complex process not fully understood... I'd say it's on you to provide it.

Why is predicting the next word proof of intelligent speech?

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#356

Post by orwin »

tambourine_man wrote: post #352
orwin wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the idea form before it's vocalized? A three year old reaching toward any toy, then saying 'mine!'. Stumbling on a specific word, stopping your sentence, then proceed to replace it with a combination of words. Or any time you paraphrase basically.

Not true in my experience. To me, words come first, the idea is a consequence I realize after a few of them have been stringed together. Knowing where the words come from, how “the brain” knows the next one before my conscious self does has always been a mystery to me. I’ve heard Sam Harris describing a similar feeling in his podcast.

You never paraphrased something despite knowing the exact word?

[edit] Or explained high level CS concepts to an undergrad at your school?

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#357

Post by hypertele-Xii »

deely3 wrote: post #328
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Internet has already become a misery filled with low quality contents injected with user-tracking ads. Adding "AI-generated" into the phrase doesn't really change much. If you make the argument of scale matters, then I think that'll also democratize art. Photography didn't put artists out of commission, it brought realism as an art form to the hands of the masses. There's plenty of creativity left to be had post-…

> However, I do believe that society should subsidise art, and distribute automated wealth somewhat evenly, so I don't even disagree with you. I'm from such society and it's pretty great. Are you from future or from non-profit DeviantArt community?

I'm from Finland where the baseline social security is home, food, heat, water, electricity, Internet, education, and healthcare. There are no starving artists here :)

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#358

Post by tambourine_man »

orwin wrote: post #356
tambourine_man wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true in my experience. To me, words come first, the idea is a consequence I realize after a few of them have been stringed together. Knowing where the words come from, how “the brain” knows the next one before my conscious self does has always been a mystery to me. I’ve heard Sam Harris describing a similar feeling in his podcast.

You never paraphrased something despite knowing the exact word? [edit] Or explained high level CS concepts to an undergrad at your school?

Sure, but how's that indicative that prediction isn't taking place?

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#359

Post by giraffe_lady »

chii wrote: post #274
giraffe_lady wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is always pointed out when this comes up, the luddites broke machines as a strategic move to resist the undermining of their class interests and livelihood by workshop owners. So the comparison is correct, but not in the way you mean, and as the luddites were right to break machines then so we are now.

They were not right to break the machines. Sometimes the wheels of progress will roll and grind over the bones of those underneath in order to move forward. You just have to hope you get out of the way in time, and cling on as the whole apparatus moves forward.

This is one of the most inhuman takes I've seen on HN and that's a damn high bar.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#360

Post by GreeningRun »

osigurdson wrote: post #222
efitz wrote: post #102

The BS that ChatGPT generates is especially odious because it requires so much effort to detect if you're not a SME in whatever output it's giving. Plus, the output, when wrong, is subtly wrong- it's usually not obvious BS, it's credible BS. If you are not competent in the particular area you're asking about, you likely don't have the skills to recognize BS. It also is a time saver, doing work that most people find u…

ChatGPT helps a lot but it is necessary to take everything with a grain of salt - so what? It still can save a lot of time. Just Alt-tab ChatGPT/Google. Adjust your mental model from what you think it should be to what it actually is.

Love your "adjust your mental model" sentence. Let's talk about the judge using it in ruling, or your doctor for diag... No problem for you? And now that it is listed as co-author on research papers (real)? Then using this source to reinforce his model! I really think it is a lot more than a grain of salt my man. [edit] AI is not all bad, just fun ;) "Is chatGPT accurate?" https://www.perplexity.ai/?s=u&uuid=c97b4388-958f-45cb-a0ae-...
Post reply on HN