121–130 of 214 posts
One lesson they might draw from the negative press is to offer a more open-ended interface, like ChatGPT, where for years people have already been asking "Pretend you are X and review my writing". This interface design pattern gives the press nowhere to point their angry fingers
Digital necrophilia. The living ones are the ones that are going to have to make the objections here. This is revolting at so many levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everything works like integrals. Some things don't have a standard process that everyone follows the same way. Editing is one of these things. There can be lots of different processes, informed by lots of different things, and getting similar output is no guarantee of a similar process.
The process is irrelevant if the output is the same, because we never observe the process. I assume you are arguing that the outputs are not guaranteed to be the same unless you reproduce the process. If we are talking about human artifacts, you never have reproducibility. The same person will behave differently from one moment to the next, one environment to another. But I assume you will call that natural variation…
The weird part about tools like this isn't just the copyright question, it's the simulation of authority
Digital necrophilia. The living ones are the ones that are going to have to make the objections here. This is revolting at so many levels.
You probably mean necromancy.
I probably did not. Then I would have written that. They are fucking over the dead. They are clearly not communicating with the dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably mean necromancy.
> You probably mean necromancy. I probably did not. Then I would have written that. They are fucking over the dead. They are clearly not communicating with the dead.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you built an LLM exclusively on the writings and letters of John Steinbeck, you could NOT tell the LLM to solve an integral for you amd expect it to be right. Isn't this obvious? There is not enough latent knowledge of math there to enable current LLMs to approximate anything resembling an integral.
Its obvious to me. Its obvious to you. It isnt obvious to the person I am responding to, and it isnt obvious to majority of individuals I speak with on the matter (which is why AI, personally, is in the bucket of religion amd politics for polite conversation to simply avoid)
LLMs can reason about integrals as well as in a literature context. You suggested that if it’s not trained on literature then it can’t reason about it. But why does that matter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've pinpointed the connection that people fail to make when they seek legal advice (or even information) from LLMs.
what prevents the input from being keystrokes and screen recordings of thousands of lawyers solving cases?