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

Chatbots are not the future

wattenberger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#111

Post by swexbe »

brokencode wrote: post #78
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chatgpt is a tool When you use a hammer or a drill, do you expect it to sometimes not hit/screw the nail? If ChatGPT is a tool for knowledge transfer/extraction, it can't hallucinate/lie to you/be wrong/make stuff up. If it's a tool for potentially discovering some knowledge that may be true and needs to almost always be verified by either a compiler or a followup "find me a reference/discussion" Google search to m…

Beyond the obvious fact that you can accidentally hit your thumb with a hammer or strip the head off a screw with a screwdriver, I’d very much like to hear about any tool for collecting knowledge that is perfect. Web searches will for sure give you wrong answers. Even professors or other experts in a field will be wrong sometimes. Heck, even Einstein got some things wrong. Your goalpost is in the wrong spot. Tools do…

If you hit yourself with a hammer, that’s your fault because you did something wrong. Comparatively, you can pose a completely correct and unambiguous question to ChatGPT and still get a wrong answer. I don’t like this implicit shifting of blame to the user when it’s the tool that is flawed.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#112

Post by okasaki »

dahwolf wrote: post #84

A lot of people are projecting for ChatGPT to come for the search market, but I wonder how that will play out for lowly cognitive queries. Quite a few people use search by awkwardly typing on mobile one or two words, probably misspelled and/or auto-completed as they type it. The query isn't sophisticated, lacks a lot of context and parameters, which the search engine then tries to guess. When you use ChatGPT in that…

Have you tried it?

I just typed "eli5 hn vs redit" (misspelled reddit), and it understands perfectly.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#113

Post by nemothekid »

anonylizard wrote: post #41
hammyhavoc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sure. But you know what makes most of human history's output of art, music, literature et al great? Intent, attention to detail and self-expression . Broad strokes are broad strokes. I can procedurally generate levels all day long in a video game, but for me, they're never going to be as compelling or interesting as a lower-resolution and low quality textured game from the '90s or '00s where every single tree an…

Really? For a writer, if you write out a plot, you can get the AI to actually simulate the character's responses and dialogue (even voiced by AI!). There, you've LITERALLY brought a character to life, each character is driven by a different persona simulated by a different AI, the quality of stories that will create, will annihilate what came before. You want to write an adventure, but want to keep it unpredictable.…

>You want to write an adventure, but want to keep it unpredictable. Ask the AI for ideas, there, the adventure is now a true adventure, not a fake mirage created by the writer.

I don't know if it's a symptom of Hollywood's sequelitis and nostalgia-wank, but the idea that consumers should be happy to consume art generated by a program that has simply taken the last 200 years of pop-art and averaged it all together is depressing.

When I read this it sounds like you've reduced art down to the labor and not the actual expression. Why would anyone want to read something where the character responses are simulated? Everything should at least be intentional.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#114

Post by erksa »

JohnFen wrote: post #59
erksa wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the artist that chooses to use AI-tools to generate art-work are in fact artist. For those who are afraid of AI being content generators that puts artist out of work will most likely be disappointed. However the technical gatekeeping some artist do goes away, and it makes room for more people being able to express them self creatively. Art is about the why. We as humans will always ask that question, and we will…

> Digital pixels are not paint brushes. So if you do not move your mouse/brush to generate a stroke? What does it matter? If you are literally explaining every stroke, then it doesn't. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about describing something in pretty general terms and allowing a computer to make the creative decisions (what "brush strokes" to make).

No, "the computer" allows the artist to be exposed to a magnitude of various arbitrary and curated creative decisions that can help guide their work and their intent.

Here's a stupid personal and anecdotal example:

I've been trying to teach myself to do watercolor paintings of my photography.

That's been going OK, but with the help of img2img, I can "quickly" generate thousands of variations of Watercolor paintings of my OWN work, then choose the various elements I like, then I paint them into one painting. Which have led my freehand painting skills to improve at a much higher rate.

If however I just put up a feed of the generated watercolors from Sdiff, it would be immediate obvious. Of course, that's right now and doesn't speak to the vast improvements that are on the horizon.

This is what I'm personally seeing in my own circles of overlapping art creators trying to experiment with AI.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that: Artist will find ways to make their intentions stand out, whatever the tools we all have access to.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#115

Post by brokencode »

swexbe wrote: post #111
brokencode wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond the obvious fact that you can accidentally hit your thumb with a hammer or strip the head off a screw with a screwdriver, I’d very much like to hear about any tool for collecting knowledge that is perfect. Web searches will for sure give you wrong answers. Even professors or other experts in a field will be wrong sometimes. Heck, even Einstein got some things wrong. Your goalpost is in the wrong spot. Tools do…

If you hit yourself with a hammer, that’s your fault because you did something wrong. Comparatively, you can pose a completely correct and unambiguous question to ChatGPT and still get a wrong answer. I don’t like this implicit shifting of blame to the user when it’s the tool that is flawed.

The design of the hammer makes it easy to miss the nail, and you need some skill in order to use it effectively. A nail gun is an example of a better tool for driving nails, since it’s faster and allows for greater accuracy.

Similarly, you can ask ChatGPT for an answer and it might get something wrong. It takes some skill to know how to interpret and verify the response. If a user takes the response as truth without question, it’s partially the user’s fault.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#116

Post by erksa »

krapp wrote: post #82
jhbadger wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the early days of Pixar, some traditionalist animators claimed that Pixar was "cheating" because they used 3D modelling tools rather than physically drawing the frames. The traditionalists didn't see computer animation as a "tool"; they saw it as the computer doing the work of the animator. Were they right? Computers make making things easier. But the human using the computer is the real creator.

Artists using 3d modeling software actually design and create the model, rigging and animation themselves, they don't tell the software "Metal articulated lamp bouncing across wooden table, 3d render, realistic lighting and shadows" and call it a day. It's a matter of how much control you have over the end product, with AI it's very little. At best, if you want to be charitable, you could describe the role of the per…

> they don't tell the software "Metal articulated lamp bouncing across wooden table, 3d render, realistic lighting and shadows"

They would if they could. Your premise seems to be based on you only getting to interact with the AI "art"generator once.

What makes you finish the quote with "and call it a day."?

What about a writer that uses a recorder to record themselfs speaking out a book and never actually "writes"? Would they be a singer instead?

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#117

Post by hammyhavoc »

erksa wrote: post #116
krapp wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists using 3d modeling software actually design and create the model, rigging and animation themselves, they don't tell the software "Metal articulated lamp bouncing across wooden table, 3d render, realistic lighting and shadows" and call it a day. It's a matter of how much control you have over the end product, with AI it's very little. At best, if you want to be charitable, you could describe the role of the per…

> they don't tell the software "Metal articulated lamp bouncing across wooden table, 3d render, realistic lighting and shadows" They would if they could. Your premise seems to be based on you only getting to interact with the AI "art"generator once. What makes you finish the quote with "and call it a day."? What about a writer that uses a recorder to record themselfs speaking out a book and never actually "writes"? W…

They would be a voiceover artist, a storyteller, a voice actor, a narrator, a performer, even an entertainer. Depends whose book it is and if the book already exists to be read from.

Ever heard of radio plays? Audio dramas?

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#118

Post by arsome »

mejutoco wrote: post #53
JohnFen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is the person using the tool an artist? I think this is an important question. If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story. It was written by the ghost writer. If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person. If you are in the camp that you don…

> If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person. I completely disagree with this. According to this, no code can be art. For instance, videogames. It has been enough time since ready-made (Duchamps urinal) and found objects, djing and sampling, and concept art. Art is not only drawing beautiful illustrations since at least the 2 world wars. > If…

> no code can be art. For instance, videogames.

I feel like this is probably a pretty bad example, generally the "art" in video games comes from things like dialogue, storytelling, level design, graphical art, not the physics engine or the renderer. There is simply not art there, it's more engineering.

There's little more art in the code portion of video games than there is in a jet engine.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#119

Post by itake »

rurp wrote: post #29
itake wrote: post #5

> Good tools make it clear how they should be used. This is such a weird statement from someone in the tech space. Programming languages rarely have an opinion for how they are to be used (for example JS MUST only run the browser or which code style to use). When I chat with customer support, I wish they could meet me where I am instead of me needing to learn their tools. For example, I want to say "cancel my subscri…

Subscription cancellation buttons are intentionally confusing and hard to find. It's easy to add a big red Cancel button in an obvious place that works immediately, but companies choose to avoid that route in order to extract more money from customers. Nothing about that dynamic will change with LLMs, those same companies will have the same priorities. The only difference will be that script-following customer servic…

> Subscription cancellation buttons are intentionally confusing and hard to find.

really? I feel like Apple's App Store provides great UX with their warning emails and centralized subscription management view. It is well documented too: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202039

But I still get emails asking me to cancel subscriptions.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#120

Post by erksa »

hammyhavoc wrote: post #117
erksa wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they don't tell the software "Metal articulated lamp bouncing across wooden table, 3d render, realistic lighting and shadows" They would if they could. Your premise seems to be based on you only getting to interact with the AI "art"generator once. What makes you finish the quote with "and call it a day."? What about a writer that uses a recorder to record themselfs speaking out a book and never actually "writes"? W…

They would be a voiceover artist, a storyteller, a voice actor, a narrator, a performer, even an entertainer. Depends whose book it is and if the book already exists to be read from. Ever heard of radio plays? Audio dramas?

So, if I record myself talking transcribe it into a book and publish it, I would be a performer, narrator or even an entertainer -- but not a writer?

Maybe my point was unclear. If I had no arms, but still managed to publish a book, would I not be considered a writer since I do not have arms?

Post reply on HN