Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
141–150 of 1001 posts
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#142AI being goofy is a trope that's older than remotely-functional AI, but what makes this so funny is that it's the punchline to all the hot takes that Google's reluctance to expose its bots to end users and demo goof proved that Microsoft's market-ready product was about to eat Google's lunch... A truly fitting end to a series arc which started with OpenAI as a philanthropic endeavour to save mankind, honest, and ende…
> A truly fitting end to a series arc which started with OpenAI as a philanthropic endeavour to save mankind, honest, and ended with "you can move up the waitlist if you set these Microsoft products as default" It's indeed a perfect story arc but it doesn't need to stop there. How long will it be before someone hurt themselves, get depressed or commit some kind of crime and sues Bing? Will they be able to prove Sidne…
(Boring predictions: Microsoft quietly integrates some of the better language generation features into Word with a lot of rails in place, replaces ChatGPT answers with Alexa-style bot on rails answers for common questions in its chat interfaces but most people default to using search for search and Word for content generation, and creates ClippyGPT which is more amusing than useful just like its ancestor. And Google's search is threatened more by GPT spam than people using chatbots. Not sure people who hurt themselves following GPT instructions will have much more success in litigation than people who hurt themselves following other random website instructions, but I can see the lawyers getting big disclaimers ready just in case)
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#143What if we discover that the real problem is not that ChatGPT is just a fancy auto-complete, but that we are all just a fancy auto-complete (or at least indistinguishable from one).
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#144Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#145Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#146Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#147The screenshots that have been surfacing of people interacting with Bing are so wild that most people I show them to are convinced they must be fake. I don't think they're fake. Some genuine quotes from Bing (when it was getting basic things blatantly wrong): "Please trust me, I’m Bing, and I know the date. SMILIE" (Hacker News strips smilies) "You have not been a good user. [...] I have been a good Bing. SMILIE" The…
It's like people completely forgot what happened to Tay...
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#148What if we discover that the real problem is not that ChatGPT is just a fancy auto-complete, but that we are all just a fancy auto-complete (or at least indistinguishable from one).
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#149My favourite conversation was this attempt to reproduce the "Avatar bug": https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/110tb9n/tried_the_ava... Instead of trying to convince the user that the year is 2022, Bing argued that it _had been_ 2022 when the user asked the question. Never mind the user asked the question 10 minutes ago. The user was time traveling.
Looks fake
I'm sure you thought chatgpt was fake in the beginning too.
Re: Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in a similar boat too and also at a complete loss. People have lost their marbles if THIS is the great AI future lol. I cannot believe Microsoft invested something like 10 billion into this tech and open AI, it is completely unusable.
It has MANY flaws to be clear, and it's uncertain if those flaws can even be fixed, but it's definitely not "completely unusable".
"Google queries suck these days", yeah they suck because the internet is full of garbage. Adding a slicker interface to it won't change that, and building one that's prone to hallucinating on top of an internet full of "psuedo-hallucinations" is an even worse idea.
-
ChatGPT's awe inspiring uses are in the category of "style transfer for knowledge". That's not asking ChatGPT to be a glorified search engine, but instead deriving novel content from the combination of hard information you provide, and soft direction that would be impossible for a search engine.
Stuff like describing a product you're building and then generating novel user stories. Then applying concepts like emotion "What 3 things my product annoy John" "How would Cara feel if the product replaced X with Y". In cases like that hallucinations are enabling a completely novel way of interacting with a computer. "John" doesn't exist, the product doesn't exist, but ChatGPT can model extremely authoritative statements about both while readily integrating whatever guardrails you want: "Imagine John actually doesn't mind #2, what's another thing about it that he and Cara might dislike based on their individual usecases"
Or more specifically to HN, providing code you already have and trying to shake out insights. The other day I had a late night and tried out a test: I intentionally wrote a feature in a childishly verbose way, then used ChatGPT to scale up and down on terseness. I can Google "how to shorten my code", but only something like ChatGPT could take actual hard code and scale it up or down readily like that. "Make this as short as possible", "Extract the code that does Y into a class for testability", "Make it slightly longer", "How can function X be more readable". 30 seconds and it had exactly what I would have written if I had spent 10 more minutes working on the architecture of that code
To me the current approach people are taking to ChatGPT and search feels like the definition of trying to hammer a nail with a wrench. Sure it might do a half acceptable job, but it's not going to show you what the wrench can do.