121–130 of 275 posts
https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/10/openais-attempts-to-waterm...
Which of these are AI free? Something written: 1. Before 1970 2. By someone who has consumed AI-generate content 3. With a ~2000-era spellchecker 4. By someone using ~2020-era neural speech-to-text software 5. With a ~2020-era spellchecker 6. By someone with an AI in the traditional editor role (reads it, gives detailed feedback) 7. By a human and an AI working together where the AI generates everything initially but…
> Published content will be later used to train subsequent models, and being able to distinguish AI from human input may be very valuable going forward I find this to be a particularly interesting problem in this whole debacle. Could we end up having AI quality trend downwards due to AI ingesting its own old outputs and reinforcing bad habits? I think it's a particular risk for text generation. I've already run into…
I feel like a similar thing already happened with YouTube recommendations
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've already run into scenarios where ChatGPT generated code that looked perfectly plausible, except for that the actual API used didn't really exist. So the next question has to be: Was this still the right answer? I've personally had plenty of instances in my programming career where the code I was working on really needed functions which were best shopped out to a common API. To avoid interrupting my flow and to…
Well, this is ChatGPT, not Copilot, so I'd assume that OP was looking for a snippet using a public library rather than an internal API. In that context, suggesting you use an API that doesn't exist is just wrong. I've definitely done this with Copilot, though—it will suggest an API that doesn't actually exist but logically should in order to be consistent, and I'll go create it.
However, as far as I know, the OpenAI team has not made it a goal to have ChatGPT only produce functional code using existing APIs. So I'm not sure we can call that an incorrect answer based on context.
If the API it demonstrated using logically should exist, it seems like the right answer is still to just go create it.
This didn't work for PGP because people in general don't care about that. And I think people in general don't care if their content is AI-generated or not.
It's not like all human-generated content on the web is tremendously accurate or well-written. Hell, maybe the AI will even be better. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scale of data for these LLMs is well beyond the scale producible via crowdsourcing.
That just isn't true. It's expensive, but entirely doable. Also, it's perfectly normal to perform initial model training on a large data set to capture the statistical properties of language, then perform a second stage of model training on more curated data to cause the model to actually do what you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is that ChatGPT is going to solve the SEO spam problem by changing the way we search for things. Instead of searching for webpages that have information about a topic, we're going to ask an AI. It'll tell you what the pros and cons of wedding insurance are, and because eventually it'll have access to your calendar, it'll tailor that answers to the specifics of the fact that you're having a destination weddin…
Regardless of spam, there is another fundamental issue with AI, Accountability. Any text you've read had a real person behind it with real intentions. Malice and greed or honesty and exploration. It would be very difficult to hold an AI accountable for any offence committed on accuracy or honesty. With a person, you can slowly get to the bottom of it and develop a relationship. AI will muddy the waters of people writ…
I didn't know that. Makes the Google OpenAI rivalry more interesting.
> Published content will be later used to train subsequent models, and being able to distinguish AI from human input may be very valuable going forward I find this to be a particularly interesting problem in this whole debacle. Could we end up having AI quality trend downwards due to AI ingesting its own old outputs and reinforcing bad habits? I think it's a particular risk for text generation. I've already run into…
> I've already run into scenarios where ChatGPT generated code that looked perfectly plausible, except for that the actual API used didn't really exist. So the next question has to be: Was this still the right answer? I've personally had plenty of instances in my programming career where the code I was working on really needed functions which were best shopped out to a common API. To avoid interrupting my flow and to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Could we end up having AI quality trend downwards due to AI ingesting its own old outputs and reinforcing bad habits? I think it's a particular risk for text generation. This is exactly what I don't like about Copilot, maybe even more than the IP ethics of it. If it really succeeds, it's going to have a feedback loop that amplifies its own code suggestions. The same boilerplate-ish kind of code that developers gene…
Devs can use their noggins to check whether copilot’s output is decent or not. It’s not a given that people will use it automatically.