131–140 of 368 posts
On the other hand, I have multiple minor issues where doctors have not been able to offer a diagnosis (they just say "I don't know") and ChatGPT has been able to offer multiple possible diagnoses.
"I don't know" is exactly what I want my docs to say when they don't know.
Being a scifi geek and AI geek and neuroscience geek for pretty much the past 40 years, I've read countless predictions and scenarios and stories about society's response as "true" AI begins to emerge. So watching it play out for real is creating this bizarre sense of deja vu combined with fascination and frustration and also some anxiety. This article and the comments in this thread are right up that alley. I mean,…
What I didn't predict is so many AI boosters being so miffed at regular folks pointing out the obvious: a half-working system may be tremendously exciting to AI enthusiasts, but it's not that useful to society. Recently we've had all these people complaining of moving goalposts, when in fact most people never had goalposts for AI in the first place, and certainly never had goalposts that remotely resembled those that…
There is only so much a human can read and remember. There is only so much they can be convinced to change their mind in the face of new evidence. They get tired. They get cranky. They have biases, and fears.
Some doctors are just terrible. I think the AI is probably more reliable than them already.
I don't think we are very far away from being able to correct an AI, and for it to remember that correction forever.
“I’m employed as an [X]. Here is why machine learning won’t ever replace my job. Even once the point has been reached where all overwhelming evidence points to it being better than me in every regard, I’ll still summon an emotional appeal to that ‘magical’ human quality that machines will just never replace.” To be honest, I think I’d rather be friends with ChatGPT than most humans as it continues developing over the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I didn't predict is so many AI boosters being so miffed at regular folks pointing out the obvious: a half-working system may be tremendously exciting to AI enthusiasts, but it's not that useful to society. Recently we've had all these people complaining of moving goalposts, when in fact most people never had goalposts for AI in the first place, and certainly never had goalposts that remotely resembled those that…
I my mind, the AI only needs to be more reliable than the human expert, and doctors and lawyers and other experts are "only human". There is only so much a human can read and remember. There is only so much they can be convinced to change their mind in the face of new evidence. They get tired. They get cranky. They have biases, and fears. Some doctors are just terrible. I think the AI is probably more reliable than t…
Being a scifi geek and AI geek and neuroscience geek for pretty much the past 40 years, I've read countless predictions and scenarios and stories about society's response as "true" AI begins to emerge. So watching it play out for real is creating this bizarre sense of deja vu combined with fascination and frustration and also some anxiety. This article and the comments in this thread are right up that alley. I mean,…
Half the time right is worse than nothing at all.
(not the smartest expert human, the human you have access to)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I didn't predict is so many AI boosters being so miffed at regular folks pointing out the obvious: a half-working system may be tremendously exciting to AI enthusiasts, but it's not that useful to society. Recently we've had all these people complaining of moving goalposts, when in fact most people never had goalposts for AI in the first place, and certainly never had goalposts that remotely resembled those that…
> a half-working system may be tremendously exciting to AI enthusiasts, but it's not that useful to society. A half-working system might actually be worse than useless if people believe it 100% of the time.
Soon enough no one will even know how to write, just read, because ChatGPT will write everything.
When GPT starts to auto-incorporate the best yet known prompts, then we'll have a better idea of its potential. You must, must use the best prompts, of which many are not widely known, and some have not (of course) been discovered ... yet. Even with human experts, you must provide sufficient detail, and the expert must ask clarifying questions for differential diagnosis.
This is nonsense - a LLMs output is a pseudo random mishmash of its training data. How can there be a "best prompt" when the same prompt gives you different output each time, but there is only one correct output?
That is, if you ask GPT a question directly, it will give the most glib, unfiltered answer possible like an average Reddit user. But if you tell it to role-play a persona it will apply elements of that persona, causing it to filter itself. Or if you tell it "describe your reasoning step by step" it will proceed down a path with greater causality. Or if you tell it "here are the rules of a language, give a response to the prompt in this language" it will attempt to produce a response that looks like those rules, using the weighting associated with logical words like "must," "cannot," "if," etc.
Measuring calibration is the problem now: we know some prompts do much better than others, but not how to optimize that in a general sense, to make an LLM always adopt the persona needed for the job.
I asked ChatGPT to write out a G major Ionian scale with three notes per string in guitar tablature notation last night. Mostly cause I was too lazy to do it myself. After 7 rounds of me fixing its mistakes, I gave up. It doesn’t really know what it is doing, so I can’t make forward progress. It put two notes on one string, repeated notes from a lower string on a higher, put the scale out of order, and forget previou…
USER
Write a G major ionian scale with three notes per string in guitar tablature notation. If not possible, tell me.
ASSISTANT
It is possible to write a G major Ionian scale with three notes per string in guitar tablature notation. Here's one way to do it:
```
E|-------------------------------------------------7-8-10-
B|--------------------------------------7-8-10-----------
G|-----------------------------4-5-7---------------------
D|-----------------4-5-7----------------------------------
A|-------3-5-7-------------------------------------------
E|-3-5-7--------------------------------------------------
```
This pattern can be shifted up and down the neck to play the G major Ionian scale in different octaves.
USER
There is an error on B string.
ASSISTANT
Apologies for the error. Here's the corrected G major Ionian scale with three notes per string in guitar tablature notation:
```
E|-------------------------------------------------7-8-10-
B|--------------------------------------5-7-8------------
G|-----------------------------4-5-7---------------------
D|-----------------4-5-7----------------------------------
A|-------3-5-7-------------------------------------------
E|-3-5-7--------------------------------------------------
```
This pattern can be shifted up and down the neck to play the G major Ionian scale in different octaves.
USER
There is an error on E string.
ASSISTANT
Apologies for the mistake. Here's the corrected G major Ionian scale with three notes per string in guitar tablature notation:
```
E|-------------------------------------------------5-7-8--
B|--------------------------------------5-7-8------------
G|-----------------------------4-5-7---------------------
D|-----------------4-5-7----------------------------------
A|-------3-5-7-------------------------------------------
E|-3-5-7--------------------------------------------------
```
This pattern can be shifted up and down the neck to play the G major Ionian scale in different octaves.
It does worry me what data people are sharing without seemingly much though. He claims it anonymised but I'm a bit sceptical when you input the medical history of 40 people. It's easy to slip up.
Running this stuff through an offline LLaMA instance? That seems fine, the software can't leak anything and doesn't retrain itself. But using ChatGPT? That simply cannot be legal.
Stories like these make me distrust doctors. Very few of them seem to care about privacy outside of telling people I know about my medical issues. Nurses gossiping about patients is bad enough.
I really don't want a future where I'm going to need to find a doctor that avoids recent technological developments because they're too uncaring or technically incompetent to not feed my most private information into some big tech company's algorithm.