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

The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 402 posts

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#381

Post by unraveller »

segasaturn wrote: post #161
unraveller wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are judging AI by what abusers of AI put out there for lols and what they themselves can wring out of it. They haven't yet seen what a bunch of AAA professionals with nothing to lose can build and align.

Billions of dollars and all of Silicon Valley's focus has been spent over the last 2 years trying to get AI to work, the "AAA professionals" are already working on AI and I still have yet to see an AI generated product that's interesting or compelling.

No AAA professionals in the entertainment profession have built a gen AI model up through their own vision that I'm aware of. AAA Nerds build the next version to distract away from flaws of the last and hope the api will get heavy use. I wouldn't expect output to be compelling with that attitude. I expect repulsive or parody clips to continue until some great creatives feel like building their replacements properly.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#382

Post by TeMPOraL »

SoftTalker wrote: post #378
TeMPOraL wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the third case: they care. In which you wouldn't be able to tell whether the card is "genuine" or AI written; the two things aren't even meaningfully different in this scenario.

You can tell if the thank-you card is hand-written. Most people don't have a pen plotter connected to their AI text generator to write thank-you notes. Emailed or texted "thank you" notes don't count. At all.

Yes, but they could also generate the text and transcribe it onto paper by hand.

For many people, myself included, 90%+ work on things like thank-you notes, greetings, invitations, or some types of e-mails, is in coming up with the right words and phrases. LLMs are a great help here, particularly with breaking through the "blank page syndrome".

It's not that different from looking up examples of holiday greetings on-line, or in a book. And the way I feel about it, if an LLM manages to pick just the right words, it's fine to use them - after all, I'm still providing the input, directing the process, and making a choice which parts of output to use and how. Such text is still "mine", even if 90% of it came from GPT-4.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#383

Post by lmm »

hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #375
lmm wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the people who make TikTok or Clash of Clans (or, hell, the Daily Mail) use their own products?

uh yes? Was this supposed to be some clever "gotcha!" that ended up being really stupid? Might want to run your clever comments by ChatGPT before you post next time chief

> uh yes?

Well, you're wrong, I know some of them.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#384

Post by Lerc »

arolihas wrote: post #368
Lerc wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you pick any well performing AI architecture, what would lead you to believe that they are not capable of having a rich internal cognitive representation? The Transformer, well... transforms, at each layer to produce a different representation of the context. What is this but an internal representation? One cannot assess whether that is rich or cognitive without some agreement of what those terms might mean. LLMs…

If you think we're only our observable behaviors or that is the only relevant thing to you then I don't think it's worth getting into this argument. Consider this excerpt from https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7094#comment-1947377 > Most animals are goal-directed, intentional, sensory-motor agents who grow interior representations of their environments during their lifetime which enables them to successfully navigate the…

> And when we say, “I like ice-cream” it’s because all of those things come together in radically complex ways to actually put us in a position to speak truthfully about ourselves. We really do like ice-cream.

Ok, now prove this is true. Can you do so without invoking unobservable properties? If you can, then observable is all that matters, if you cannot then you have no proof.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#385

Post by arolihas »

Lerc wrote: post #384
arolihas wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think we're only our observable behaviors or that is the only relevant thing to you then I don't think it's worth getting into this argument. Consider this excerpt from https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7094#comment-1947377 > Most animals are goal-directed, intentional, sensory-motor agents who grow interior representations of their environments during their lifetime which enables them to successfully navigate the…

> And when we say, “I like ice-cream” it’s because all of those things come together in radically complex ways to actually put us in a position to speak truthfully about ourselves. We really do like ice-cream. Ok, now prove this is true. Can you do so without invoking unobservable properties? If you can, then observable is all that matters, if you cannot then you have no proof.

Do I seriously have to prove to you that you like ice cream? Have you tried it? If you sincerely believe you are a husk whose language generation is equivalent to some linear algebra then why even engage in a conversation with me? Why should I waste my time proving to you a human that you have a human experience if you don’t believe it yourself?

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#386

Post by SoftTalker »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #382
SoftTalker wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tell if the thank-you card is hand-written. Most people don't have a pen plotter connected to their AI text generator to write thank-you notes. Emailed or texted "thank you" notes don't count. At all.

Yes, but they could also generate the text and transcribe it onto paper by hand. For many people, myself included, 90%+ work on things like thank-you notes, greetings, invitations, or some types of e-mails, is in coming up with the right words and phrases. LLMs are a great help here, particularly with breaking through the "blank page syndrome". It's not that different from looking up examples of holiday greetings on-…

I guess if someone went through the effort to prompt an LLM for a thank-you card note, and then transcribed that by hand to a card and mailed it, that would count. It's somehow more about knowing that they are making some actual effort to send a personalized thank you than it is about who wrote it.

But honestly I don't think "blank page syndrome" is very common for a thank-you card. We're talking about a few sentences expressing appreciation. You don't really have to over-think it. People who don't send thank-yous are mostly just being lazy.

My financial advisor sends out Christmas cards and Birthday cards. They are pre-printed stock cards. I don't even open them. I should tell him not to waste the money. If he even wrote just one sentence that expressed some personal interest, then they would mean something.

These kinds of messages are on the one hand just pro-forma courtesies, but on the other hand they require that that some personal effort is invested, or else they are meaningless.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#387

Post by hnthrowaway6543 »

lmm wrote: post #383
hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uh yes? Was this supposed to be some clever "gotcha!" that ended up being really stupid? Might want to run your clever comments by ChatGPT before you post next time chief

> uh yes? Well, you're wrong, I know some of them.

oh word? i know a guy at Microsoft who doesn't use Excel, that means nobody at Microsoft ever uses Excel and they're just peddling crap to the dumb masses

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#388

Post by Lerc »

arolihas wrote: post #385
Lerc wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And when we say, “I like ice-cream” it’s because all of those things come together in radically complex ways to actually put us in a position to speak truthfully about ourselves. We really do like ice-cream. Ok, now prove this is true. Can you do so without invoking unobservable properties? If you can, then observable is all that matters, if you cannot then you have no proof.

Do I seriously have to prove to you that you like ice cream? Have you tried it? If you sincerely believe you are a husk whose language generation is equivalent to some linear algebra then why even engage in a conversation with me? Why should I waste my time proving to you a human that you have a human experience if you don’t believe it yourself?

You don't need to prove to me that I like ice cream. You need to prove to me that you like ice cream. That you even have the capacity to like. Asserting that you have those experiences proves nothing since even a simple basic program 10 print "I like Ice Cream" can do that.

How can you reliably deny the presence of an experience of another if you cannot prove that experience in yourself?

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#389

Post by arolihas »

Lerc wrote: post #388
arolihas wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I seriously have to prove to you that you like ice cream? Have you tried it? If you sincerely believe you are a husk whose language generation is equivalent to some linear algebra then why even engage in a conversation with me? Why should I waste my time proving to you a human that you have a human experience if you don’t believe it yourself?

You don't need to prove to me that I like ice cream. You need to prove to me that you like ice cream. That you even have the capacity to like. Asserting that you have those experiences proves nothing since even a simple basic program 10 print "I like Ice Cream" can do that. How can you reliably deny the presence of an experience of another if you cannot prove that experience in yourself?

I actually don’t need to prove to you that I’m more than a BASIC program. I mean listen to yourself. You simply don’t live in the real world. If your mom died and we replaced her with a program that printed a bunch of statements that were designed to as closely mimic your conversations with her as much as possible you wouldn’t argue hey this program is just like my mom. But hey maybe you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference behind the curtain so actually it might as well asbe the same thing in your view, right? I mean who are we to deny that mombot is just like your mom via an emergent pattern somewhere deep inside the matrices in an unprovable way /s. Just because I can’t solve the philosophical zombie problem for you at your whim to your rigor doesn’t mean a chatbot has some equivalent internal experience.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#390

Post by Lerc »

arolihas wrote: post #389
Lerc wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to prove to me that I like ice cream. You need to prove to me that you like ice cream. That you even have the capacity to like. Asserting that you have those experiences proves nothing since even a simple basic program 10 print "I like Ice Cream" can do that. How can you reliably deny the presence of an experience of another if you cannot prove that experience in yourself?

I actually don’t need to prove to you that I’m more than a BASIC program. I mean listen to yourself. You simply don’t live in the real world. If your mom died and we replaced her with a program that printed a bunch of statements that were designed to as closely mimic your conversations with her as much as possible you wouldn’t argue hey this program is just like my mom. But hey maybe you wouldn’t be able to tell the…

I'm not claiming that any particular chatbot has an equivalent experience, I'm claiming there is no basis beyond its behaviour that it does not.

With the duplicate mother problem, if you cannot tell then there is no reason to believe that it is not a being of equivalent nature. That is not the same as identity, for a layman approach to that viewpoint, see Star Trek: TNG, Season 6, Episode 24. A duplicate Will Riker is created but is still a distinct entity (and one might argue, more original since has been transported one fewer times). Acting the same as is not the same as being the same entity. Nevertheless it has no bearing on whether the duplicate is a valid entity in its own right.

You feel like I'm not living in the real world, but I am the one asking what basis we have for knowing things. You are relying on the presumption that the world reflects what you believe it to be. Epistemology is all about idetifying exactly how much we know about the world.

Post reply on HN