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

ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

biblioracle.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#11

Post by CarRamrod »

bulatb wrote: post #8
knowknow wrote: post #6

It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…

You can't interrogate your qualia. A lot of people think (or really, feel) that makes them magic. It doesn't. But if you feel they're magic, you'll never believe that a "random" mechanical process, which you think you can interrogate, could ever really have that spark.

Define 'magic'.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#12

Post by pests »

drpossum wrote: post #10
ctxc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To note - 2022

Not sure why that is in any way relevant, but thanks.

It was 12 days after 3.5 was released. A lot has changed since then.

The point being take anything in with a view of the times, just like if I were to show you quotes from people 60 years ago saying computers are useless and no one will use them.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#13

Post by wolvesechoes »

bulatb wrote: post #8
knowknow wrote: post #6

It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…

You can't interrogate your qualia. A lot of people think (or really, feel) that makes them magic. It doesn't. But if you feel they're magic, you'll never believe that a "random" mechanical process, which you think you can interrogate, could ever really have that spark.

Welcome on hackernews, where thousands years old philosophical problems are solved through plain assertions!

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#14

Post by bulatb »

wolvesechoes wrote: post #13
bulatb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't interrogate your qualia. A lot of people think (or really, feel) that makes them magic. It doesn't. But if you feel they're magic, you'll never believe that a "random" mechanical process, which you think you can interrogate, could ever really have that spark.

Welcome on hackernews, where thousands years old philosophical problems are solved through plain assertions!

Qualia might still be magic. Maybe we have souls or something, I don't know.

I'm comfortable with saying that this way of answering the question doesn't work, because the argument is simply, "How can it be false if I believe it's true?"

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#15

Post by zedascouves »

> I could tell GPT to add in an anomaly for the 1970s - like the girl looking at Billy’s Instagram - and it would introduce it into the text without a comment about being anomalous

Wrong. I tried it. it wrote it as "instagram". Then i asked it to explain this instagram:

In Timmy’s mind, it was simple. First, he’d snap a Polaroid of some passing dog or a field of sunflowers. Next, he’d run home, sit at his rickety desk, and carefully slip the Polaroid into a school notebook he called his “feed.” He’d scribble a title at the top—something he swore was called a “caption”—and pretend he was beaming the image across some invisible network into the hands of friends he’d never actually met.

Awesome to me

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#16

Post by thowawatp302 »

pests wrote: post #12
drpossum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why that is in any way relevant, but thanks.

It was 12 days after 3.5 was released. A lot has changed since then. The point being take anything in with a view of the times, just like if I were to show you quotes from people 60 years ago saying computers are useless and no one will use them.

Cool you have more than the one canard from IBM for five computers that became triple the amount?

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#17

Post by pizza »

bulatb wrote: post #8
knowknow wrote: post #6

It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…

You can't interrogate your qualia. A lot of people think (or really, feel) that makes them magic. It doesn't. But if you feel they're magic, you'll never believe that a "random" mechanical process, which you think you can interrogate, could ever really have that spark.

Hang on a sec... the qualia research institute might take umbrage at that first bit.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#18

Post by baq »

bulatb wrote: post #8
knowknow wrote: post #6

It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…

You can't interrogate your qualia. A lot of people think (or really, feel) that makes them magic. It doesn't. But if you feel they're magic, you'll never believe that a "random" mechanical process, which you think you can interrogate, could ever really have that spark.

I subscribe to the ‘qualia is atoms in a trenchcoat’ school of philosophy personally, but I understand that it might be hard to accept and even harder to not be depressed about it.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#19

Post by baq »

thowawatp302 wrote: post #16
pests wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was 12 days after 3.5 was released. A lot has changed since then. The point being take anything in with a view of the times, just like if I were to show you quotes from people 60 years ago saying computers are useless and no one will use them.

Cool you have more than the one canard from IBM for five computers that became triple the amount?

IBM 1979 presentation slide is kinda timeless.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#20

Post by dist-epoch »

knowknow wrote: post #6

It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…

> amusing that people minimize it by just calling it pattern matching

Even funnier when the typical IQ test, Raven's Progressive Matrices, are 100% about pattern matching.

Post reply on HN