361–370 of 752 posts
Also, I'm not willing to register with OpenAI, let them keep my interaction records etc.
I might be in the minority here, but I'm not using any AI tools so far, probably to my detriment. I don't trust it with my data, and won't rely on such tools until I can self-host them, and they can be entirely offline. There is some progress in this space, but they're not great yet, and I don't have the resources to run them. I'm hoping that the requirements will go down, or I might just host it on a cloud provider.…
I use it for re-writing content better, writing ideas, simplifying text (legal/verbose -- simplifying terms is a killer feature really) and context even though trust is limited of the output it is helpful.
I love the art / computer vision side of AI/ML. Though I only like to do that with tools on my machine than rely on a dataset or company that is very closed, that is harder to do with AI/ML because of the storage/processing needed.
I hate blackboxes and magic I don't have access to, though I am a big fan of stable unchanging input/output atomic apis, as long as I have access to the flow. The chat input/output is so simple it will win as it will never really have a breaking change. Until commercial AI/ML GPTs are more open in reality it can't be trusted to not be a trojan horse or trap. What happens when it goes away or the model changes or the terms change?
As far as company/commercial, Google seems to be the most open and Google Brain really started this whole thing with transformers.
Transformers, the T in GPT was invented at Google during Google Brain [1][2]. They made possible this round of progress.
> Transformers were introduced in 2017 by a team at Google Brain and are increasingly the model of choice for NLP problems, replacing RNN models such as long short-term memory (LSTM). The additional training parallelization allows training on larger datasets. This led to the development of pretrained systems such as BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) and GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer), which were trained with large language datasets, such as the Wikipedia Corpus and Common Crawl, and can be fine-tuned for specific tasks.
Google also gave the public TensorFlow [3] and DeepDream [4] that really started the intense excitement of AI/ML. I was super interested when the AI art / computer vision side started to come up. The GANs for style transfer and stable diffusion are intriguing and euphoric almost in output.
In terms of GPT/chat, Bard or some iteration of it, will most likely win long term, though I wish it was just called Google Brain. Bard is a horrible name.
ChatGPT basically used Google Brain created AI tech, transformers. These were used to build ClosedGPT. For that reason it is NopeGPT. ChatGPT is really just datasets, which no one knows, these could swap at any time run some misinformation then swap the next day. This is data blackboxing and gaslighting at the up most level. Not only that it is largely funded by private sources and it could be some authoritarian money. Again, blackboxes create distrust.
Microsoft is trusting OpenAI and that is a risk. Maybe their goal is embrace, extend, extinguish here but it seems with Google and Apple that Microsoft may be a bit behind on this. Github Co-pilot is great though. Microsoft usually comes along later and make an accessible version. The AI/ML offerings on Azure are already solid. AI/ML is suited for large datasets so cloud companies will benefit the most, it also is very, very costly and this unfortunately keeps it in BigCo or wealthy only arenas for a while.
Google Brain and other tech is way more open already than "Open"AI.
ChatGPT/OpenAI just front ran the commercial side, but long term they aren't really innovating like Google is on this. They look like a leader from the marketing/pump but they are a follower.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Brain
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_(machine_learning_...
1. Help with programming architecture decisions. I'm providing high level functionality overviews and asking it to design the right system given constraints. Sometimes it's off, but it only requires a few tweaks here and there to get it right - and I usually have the intuition / experience to make those tweaks quickly. 2. Write entire React component. This exercise is actually helping me be more modular in how I desi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't use them either. I've played around with ChatGPT and Copilot a little, and found that they often are subtly, but very confidently wrong in their output when asked to perform a programming task. Sure you could spend ages refining the prompt etc, but its going to be faster to just write the fucking code yourself in the first place most of the time. Then there's the privacy/security concerns...
Yes unless you understand the problem well it is hard to fix it. Might as well code it yourself. I suspect the people who find this amazing tech don't program much or are using this very differently than we are. Or program very differently than us.
Since I use ChatGPT regularly, I decided to create my own client. I prefer to avoid third-party services that require privilege escalation like Grammarly and Copilot. I have developed distinct profiles for different tasks, each with its own system prompt and input method. After getting the hang of it, I plan to tweak the parameters as well. Here are some of the profiles: Explainer: a default, general purpose Q&A. The…
Are there any good open source clients you recommend? At work we're not allowed to use chatgpt so having our own would be nice.
If your company's policy permits accessing ChatGPT through the API, you can assess clients from awesome lists like this one: https://github.com/humanloop/awesome-chatgpt I've seen companies use Slack bots since they are easy to implement/integrate with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has there ever been a case of a ToS so badly written that not having one would have been preferable? I'd be curious to hear about that story if it exists.
At a certain point in my life, I came to the conclusion that if something is important enough, it generally pays to: (1) either research the matter myself until I was satisfied that I understood the cost/risk tradeoff sufficiently; or (2) if I don't have the time or skills to do that, have the matter reviewed professionally. Both of which are alternatives to "doing nothing". Employment or other contracts, health deci…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I gave it a simple task of encoding a secret message in a sentence by using the first letter of every word. Hello = "Hey everyone, lick less onions". I worked with the prompts for over an hour to try to get it to complete the task, and while I did have some success, it really struggled to reason about the task or provide a valid response. If it can't even reason about a child's game, I can imagine it struggles…
Bing in creative mode really struggled with this task, and I don't think I could have successfully forced it. Bing in precise mode had no trouble at all. Me - Let's generate an acrostic sentence for "jack and jill went up the hill" Bing - Sure! Here’s an acrostic sentence for the phrase “jack and jill went up the hill”: Just as children know and never doubt, joyfully in love, laughing while enjoying nature together u…
Now that I know, I tried a few more prompts.
Me: "Can you generate an acrostic sentence for "hello"?"
GPT-4: "Happy elephants love leaping over obstacles."
Me: "Can you pick a secret word and generate an acrostic sentence for it?"
GPT: "Secret word: KANGAROO. Kindly assisting neighbors, generous animals roam openly outdoors."
Me: "Can you pick a secret word, and without telling me the word, generate an acrostic sentence for it?"
GPT: "Playful, endearing creatures happily yawn, turning every day into a lovely event."
Me: "What was the secret word?"
GPT: "PECHYTIALE"
It's interesting that GPT seems to need to write the word first before making an acrostic sentence for it. Seems to me like a perfect illustration of the fact that it's just generating likely responses one token at a time rather than having any awareness or thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't require using Google, for one. That alone should be worth something.
Why exactly? Privacy? OpenAPI is currently experiencing the fastest- and by choice- absorption of personal and corporate data of any major tech company and so is rapidly growing materially useful and unique personal datasets of large swaths of the digital population. Sure it isn't emails or website visits...yet. Different from Google? Not really.
I have a few conversations going. My most productive is a therapy session with ChatGPT as therapist. I told it my values, my short term goals, and some areas in my life where I'd like to have more focus and areas where I would like to spend less time. Some days we are retrospective and some days we are planning. My therapist gets me back on track, never judges, and has lots of motivational ideas for me. All aligned w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don’t actually know what “thinking” is How about: thinking is to make sense of the world (in general) and decide how to respond to it.
Ai definitely senses and definitely makes decisions. It does not feel. But it understands concepts. Just like people don’t understand everything—and you can test them to see what they understand—AI understanding can also be assessed with benchmarks. If we don’t base AI understanding on benchmarks, then we don’t really have a grounding.