Live data from Hacker News

We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

danmcquillan.org

131–140 of 425 posts

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#131

Here'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.

The danger is that ChatGPT will increase the bullshit-to-signal ratio in our lives.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#133

I 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…

It runs against the purpose of HN, though. Take a look at:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34662167

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34240213

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34178237

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#134
post #56

> However, as I spell out in my book, the concept of AGI is inseparable from the kind of hierarchy of intelligence that has underpinned ideas of innate supremacy since the days of empire and colonialism. I think this line discredits the entire article, which was already a few obvious points blown at gale force into the reader’s ear.

I disliked the article, but this particular quote is a relatively strong one. Colonialism, racism, and aristocratic structures were often justified by the idea that certain classes of people are more intelligent, enlightened, or were selected by dieties. Here the author is arguing that a similar process is happening with AI, where atrocious policies by people in power are justified by claiming the AI (which was trained to encode the powerful groups values) is more intelligent.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#135
post #56

> However, as I spell out in my book, the concept of AGI is inseparable from the kind of hierarchy of intelligence that has underpinned ideas of innate supremacy since the days of empire and colonialism. I think this line discredits the entire article, which was already a few obvious points blown at gale force into the reader’s ear.

Another extract,

> Saying, as the OpenAI CEO does[1], that we are all 'stochastic parrots' like large language models, statistical generators of learned patterns that express nothing deeper, is a form of nihilism. Of course, the elites don't apply that to themselves, just to the rest of us. The structural injustices and supremacist perspectives layered into AI put it firmly on the path of eugenicist solutions to social problems.

[1] Sam Altman: i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u

That this isn't even sentence-to-sentence consistent is somehow one of the less egregious aspects of it.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#136
post #102

The 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 u…

>if you're not a SME

Small and Medium-sized Enterprise?

What's SME in this instance?

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#137

I 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…

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.

AI is still not AI, still cannot pass the 'critical thinking' task.

I can prove this without having ever interacted with ChatGPT.

The problem with "A.I." is that it continues to only be able to take the 'almost best' sum of ideology and not invent new ideas. AI cannot innovate. It can only imitate.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#138

"ChatGPT isn't really new but simply an iteration of the class war that's been waged since the start of the industrial revolution." I'm scared too but this is literally neo-ludite sperging.

This is not entirely ludite. Massive AI models has to be trained on the massive amount of data from the internet, which is built by the entirety of the humankind. However, the profit from those models is not being systemically redistributed to the society. Those AI companies are standing right on a copyright gray zone, and are abusing people's goodwill to benefit only a select few. The social capital that built the internet culture will get dried up, and the internet will become a misery filled with AI-generated low quality contents injected with user-tracking ads.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#139
To me, his tone is so over-the-top that it has almost no chance at convincing anyone, and only speaks to those most ardent in his own ideological viewpoint. Plus, selling me a book, everybody has a book and 90% of them honestly probably aren't worth my time reading.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#140
I believe that what's going on in ChatGPT basically represents how most humans think, not including cherry-picked examples.

ChatGPT has been criticized for not knowing some facts about the world, or math. But many people don't know facts about the world, or math. Math is something that people have to learn over many years, which is difficult for some people (even just at the level of arithmetic).

Thinking, to the average person, is about rearranging a salad of words into something that "resonates". Plus some non-verbal reasoning, like how do I rotate this suitcase to fit into this trunk; but this is fundamentally just the same thing.

Post reply on HN