291–300 of 348 posts
You can see the share here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/dullmensclub/permalink/12449...
I think this is an amazing idea! The only flaw I see with it is that without the sensationalized headlines I read through going "Oh that doesn't matter, that doesn't matter either" etc haha I haven't found an article that sounds interesting in a few scrolls. I mean, it's great because it's accurate. Half of the "news" we're fed is sensationalized so we'll click on it and it's really nothing but it gets us riled up ab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've come around to there being legitimate usecases for this type of generative AI, but I don't think producing anything that's supposed to be "True" or "Correct" is one. I think the only useful usecases is for when you want to generate fiction.
If you tell GPT-4 specifically to respond with proper jargon for the domain like that found in a textbook or journal it provides much much more useful replies. Silly that prompt engineering is what's required but at least for my purposes wherein I fact check it's output it's right nearly all the time and I've learned a great deal.
At the moment GPTs are trained on so much data across so many domains that you have to treat it like a person who has similar knowledge.
If I just walk up to you and start sputtering jargon about a very specific complex topic, when you were just chatting to another friend about all sorts of everyday topics, you're not going to be able to reply to me immediately.
With these GPTs it helps to get it "in the mood" for your topic by preloading keywords and shifting the topic over and deeper so your desired topic is clearer to the attention mechanism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure yeah, for now. Just saying I literally use it to mine out things to confirm (/ not believe until I do) and so far it has very rarely led me astray and even then it's been small nuance. It's striking.
What do you mean "for now"? Yes, right now, at the most impressive it's ever been, it has this fundamental flaw.
He does not need de-sensationalizing but he badly needs summarising, which seems adjacent. That Matt Levine refuses to use the services of an editor is one of the greatest tragedies of our era.
I'm generally excited about something I'm calling "English to English translation" - and this is a good example. Previously translation has focused on going between languages. I think there's just as much benefit to translating within a given language. * Translate corporate speak to plain English. * Translate passive aggressive to calm and peaceful. * Translate sensationalist to neutral (like the OP). * Translate imp…
I am looking forward to a tool to summarize a 10 page long Terms of Service into a list of points about what I really need to beware of. Same for legal contracts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure yeah, for now. Just saying I literally use it to mine out things to confirm (/ not believe until I do) and so far it has very rarely led me astray and even then it's been small nuance. It's striking.
What do you mean "for now"? Yes, right now, at the most impressive it's ever been, it has this fundamental flaw.
Asimov, The Last Question https://youtu.be/ojEq-tTjcc0