So, I copy and paste it to Open AI classifier and it says "The classifier considers the text to be possibly AI-generated."
We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
101–110 of 425 posts
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#102The BS that ChatGPT generates is especially odious because it requires so much effort to detect if you're not a SME in whatever output it's giving.
Plus, the output, when wrong, is subtly wrong- it's usually not obvious BS, it's credible BS. If you are not competent in the particular area you're asking about, you likely don't have the skills to recognize BS.
It also is a time saver, doing work that most people find unrewarding. So you get a chorus of fans saying "it saved me a bunch of time doing my own research and just spit out what I needed". Maybe it did, or maybe they didn't have enough expertise in the area to recognize the flaws in the output it presented.
[ed] deleted duplicate word
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How functional does the code have to be before it's no longer a hallucination? From LLMs, at least, I expect it will always be a hallucination. Code is never the point. Code is the working medium by which people solve problems for other people. One way to see this is to realize that code bases on their own are generally worthless in the sense that people rarely pay much money for them. They pay for users. They pay…
> Another way to look at it: imagine that a manager looks at ChatGPT and says, "At last, I can fire all the programmers. Fuck those guys." They set out to build an app. How long do you think it will take before they are forced to admit defeat and hire somebody who can read and edit the code? How is this different from "At last, I can fire all [those senior programmers and hire junior ones, and keep a team lead around…
Maybe I'm not getting the point of your question. It's different in that junior programmers are still people, capable of much more than LLMs are. But yes, it's the same shortsighted executive intent.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#104[deleted]
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure why we need comments from people proud that they couldn’t be troubled to read the article that is supposedly being discussed, but it seems like a popular genre of reply whenever something tech-critical is posted.
I tried to read the article too and found it both visually unpleasant and intellectually unfocused. GP is making the rather comically clever point that ChatGPT is useful to summarize text that might be difficult for humans to parse, even a text claiming that ChatGPT is a useless model only capable of spewing Islamophobic speech and in need of burying. I mean the article ends on some tangent about reactionary solution…
>both visually unpleasant
Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that. It's like the author picked a font/CSS combo to simulate a book with horrible typesetting.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#106I skimmed his book, and I don't know, man. His thesis as I understand it is a viewpoint I have held for a while now --- artificial intelligence does things that humans do, but faster. It's a force multiplier. Hence your views on AI are likely to correspond directly to your views on those groups who hold power. McQuillan approaches this from an intersectional lens and arrives at entirely predictable conclusions. It's a bunch of academic jargon obscuring the central idea of "society consists mostly of people hurting people in easily identifiable ways, this is bad, AI makes it go faster, hence the ways we use AI are unethical." Or to make it even shorter, "No ethical AI under capitalism."
Admitting that more technology isn't going to solve our problems feels to me like admitting that we are well and truly fucked beyond saving.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#107I found the article really difficult to read, so I summarised it with ChatGPT Large language models like the GPT family are statistical models that learn the structure of language by predicting missing words in sentences. These models are seen as "bullshit generators" as they have no idea what they are talking about and are designed to produce baseless assertions with confidence. The addition of reinforcement learnin…
This is not even a correct summary of the content of the post. I'm genuinely entertained by the sheer amount of shamelessness demonstrated here. Seriously, though, technology at wrong hands endorses bad behaviors.
I think this is where the OP says "QED".
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#108It has lots of value. But it's not the AI it pretends to be. Mostly because we and it can't always tell what's fact or fiction and it has 0 cognition. It's up to us to figure out where it can add value. It's way too early to announce its death. It's a super charged Cliff Clavin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Clavin
> it has 0 cognition This seems to be the number one problem with lay understanding of ML masquerading as AGI. People immediately jump to the conclusion that the computer can think . Not yet, not even close. Edit: Switching AI to AGI to avoid any confusion.
I’m not sure if I can think, despite having a PhD in EECS. We humans prize our ability to think very highly but it’s a nebulous concept. I believe these models will get much better at simulating “thinking” in the next few years, and we soon won’t be able to say the model isn’t thinking, we’ll move on to criticizing the quality of its responses the way we criticize other bad ideas.
The point of the Turing test, to me, was that if a process responds in a logical way, you can’t really tell whether it is thinking or computing - and it doesn’t matter.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#109I found the article really difficult to read, so I summarised it with ChatGPT Large language models like the GPT family are statistical models that learn the structure of language by predicting missing words in sentences. These models are seen as "bullshit generators" as they have no idea what they are talking about and are designed to produce baseless assertions with confidence. The addition of reinforcement learnin…
And what makes you think this is a correct summary
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#110Here's the thing... so many jobs are bullshit. So many things people are paid to write, presentations made, etc. are bullshit. I'm not judging the bullshit per se. There's good bullshit and bad, necessary bullshit and not. But yeah, when you accept this reality, AI is sort of perfect for the bullshit that exists in our lives.
I’m sorry, but once you type the line ‘There's good bullshit and bad, necessary bullshit and not’ you are no longer saying anything meaningful or enlightening. Words are not supposed to be bullshit. That’s the general issue with this take.
> Words are not supposed to be
Ah, so language has been designed with a certain purpose in mind?