From the post: > Ah, you can’t fire me, I’m self-employed! I don't understand thinking like this. I think companies can certainly fire their contractors.
Humour — it's so subjective.
"Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
351–360 of 408 posts
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
My writing used to be littered with them, but I now eschew the em in favour of en, as it has become too strong an anti-shibboleth. I have also taken to being sloppier in my prose, as I’ve had stories rejected for being “written by AI” - when they’re shorts I wrote more than a decade ago. Reworked them to sound like a moron, accepted. Sigh.
> I now eschew the em in favour of en They have different meaning and are not interchangeable.
For the use discussed here, they basically are.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#353The ending is a really powerful point. Most people apparently agree on two things: 1. AI is a great boon for all tasks and specialties we don’t have the skills to do ourselves. Understandable, since (A) we’re ill equipped to see the flaws in its output because it isn’t our area of expertise, and (B) it often can unlock great gains because if we trust it, we then don’t have to pay and wait for humans to do that thing.…
> This is why I use AI for all my medical questions and doctors use AI to write software, and we both smirk at the quality the other person is getting from it. There is an interesting third group emerging: People who acknowledge the quality problem, but think they can deal with it by applying more AI to the output. This takes the form of people who spin up a lot of "agents" and give them personalities like security d…
I'm in a similar-ish boat here. I acknowledge that what I paid an LLM $100 to develop isn't as good as what if pay a human $100,000 to do, but it's "good enough" to solve the problem.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#354Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#355You'd be laughed at if you said that ChatGPT could help you with graduate level mathematics in 2024, but this year, AI models on simple prompts are solving previously unsolved Erdos problems. It seems silly to imagine that there is some fundamental barrier between human intelligence and AI, and that AI could never do many of the things that humans can do. Inferring intent, gauging sentiments, factoring in cultural va…
As mentioned in the article, the point of language is to communicate with other humans, and you need a human to do that. Mathematics is famously rigorously defined, it's roughly analog to AI beating humans at chess. Sure it's impressive, but it's also something you'd expect machines to be good at.
People have been skeptical of them doing advanced maths because it involves complicated thinking which the 'stochastic parrot' folk thought wouldn't happen.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not have to be brushed away as "brute force" necessarily. We can, and do, build more reliable systems out of less reliable components. In fact, most industrial engineering accepts some defect rate and builds margins around it. Software is no different. Even without AI, you already have buggy compilers and buggy OSes and buggy libraries. You just tend to accept the risk because you have some idea of what the f…
> you already have buggy compilers and buggy OSes and buggy libraries. Which run, I must add, on effectively infallible hardware. Most of the software straight up assumes that the CPUs and the RAM will function perfectly and don't bother even trying to detect such failures (unless those failures manifest themselves in a catastrophic manner, the show will simply go on). So in effect, we also can, and do, build less re…
You should talk to an electrical engineer or materials scientist about how reliable transistors emerge from noisy voltages in wires.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#357I don't see LLMs being able to replace translators for less-spoken languages. I know a translator between two Eastern European languages, and some jobs require use of specialized dictionaries. Using LLMs in such cases would be very unreliable and would require even more effort to check and correct than doing it correctly in the first place. Plus, I really doubt that US tech firms are training LLMs on language spoken…
I use Google Translate quite a lot and it's pretty good even for obscure languages. The voice to text thing on youtube videos has improved a lot in the last five years.
Re. not training on obscure languages, the current thing seems to be to chuck all digital information available into the training so although they probably don't hire a human, the specialist dictionaries are probably in there.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't necessarily disagree, but there's gotta be a name for some kind of "infinite extrapolation" fallacy, where you assume that the current rate of progress will continue indefinitely. I am not assuming they'll continue indefinitely, but it's a small step from writing code to planning out the code to write, and another small step from planning a coding project to planning a software project, etc. These are all s…
I think with a fixed size problem, no we wouldn't be able to demand the same salaries that we get now. I dispute that the problem is fixed size. The people who are senior engineers now will learn how to think at a higher level with the AI models.
> The people who are senior engineers now will learn how to think at a higher level with the AI models.
I think my argument is that, if they were going to do that, they would have done so by now - they already say that actual coding was only a small percentage of their work anyway.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#359We should rename AI psychosis The AI Delusion, since it's really about people being deluded (often that it can do everyone else's job not there's) and because ironically Richard Dawkins seems to have fallen fully into being fully deluded by it.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always imagine the model rolling its silicon eyes when it’s assigned a personality (“you are an expert growth hacker”) at the start of the prompt. Was that ever actually shown to be effective? Is it still?
There was a time when stuff like "Unreal Engine, trending on ArtStation, 8K resolution" actually worked when prompting image gen models because such labels actually correlated with higher-quality images in the web-crawled training datasets available back then.
[flagged]