Chatbot advertising has to be one of the most powerful forms of marketing yet. People are basically all the way through the sales pipeline when they land on your page.
Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
141–150 of 451 posts
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#142"Should we really be developing features in response to misinformation?" No, because you'll be held responsible for the misinformation being accurate: users will say it is YOUR fault when they learn stuff wrong.
Either the user is a non-paying user and it doesn't matter what they think, or the user is a paying customer and you will be happy to make and sell them the feature they want.
This is why you will fail.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone is entitled to make a request—or to ignore one.
There is a big difference between the above 'request' and, say, me politely asking the time of a complete stranger I walk by on the street. Requests containing elements of hostility, shame, or injury frequently serve dual purposes: (1) the ostensible aim of eliciting an action and (2) the underlying objective of inflicting some from of harm (here shame) as a means compelling compliance through emotional leverage. Eve…
These are good points, but I think they represent a somewhat narrow view of the issue. What's happening here is that we're discussing among ourselves what kinds of actions would be good or bad with respect to AI, just as we would with any other social issue, such as urban development, immigration, or marital infidelity. You could certainly argue that saying "please don't replace wetlands with shopping malls" or "please don't immigrate to the United States" has "the underlying objective of inflicting some from of harm (here shame) as a means [of] compelling compliance through emotional leverage."
But it isn't a given that this will be successful; the outcome of the resulting conversation may well be that shopping malls are, or a particular shopping mall is, more desirable than wetlands, in which case the ostensible respondent will be less likely to comply than they would have been without the conversation. And, in this case, it seems that the conversation is strongly tending toward favoring the use of things like Grammarly rather than opposing it.
So I don't oppose starting such conversations. I think it's better to discuss ethical questions like this openly, even though sometimes people suffer shame as a result.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#144i LOVE this despite feeling for the impacted devs and service. love me some good guitar tabs, and honestly id totally beleive the chatgpt here hah..
what a wonderful incident / bug report my god.
totally sorry for the trouble and amazing find and fix honestly.
sorry i am more amazed than sorry :D. thanks for sharing this !!
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#145Beyond the blog: Going to be an interesting world where these kinds of suggestions become paid results and nobody has a hope of discovering your competitive service exists. At least in that world you'd hope the advertiser actually has the feature already!
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
A light-weight anecdote: Many many python image-processing libraries have an `imread()` function. I didn't know about this when designing our own bespoke image-lib at work, and went with an esoteric `image_get()` that I never bothered to refactor. When I ask ChatGPT for help writing one-off scripts using the internal library I often forget to give it more context than just `import mylib` at the top, and it almost alw…
As someone not familiar with these libraries, image_get or image_read seems much clearer to me than imread. I'm wondering if the convention is worse than your instinct in this case. Maybe these AI tools will push us towards conventions that aren't always the best design.
image_get is clearer—unless you've used Matlab, Octave, matplotlib, SciPy, OpenCV, scikit-learn, or other things that have copied Matlab's interface. In that case, using the established name is clearer.
(Unless, on the gripping hand, your image_get function is subtly different from Matlab's imread, for example by not returning an array, in which case a different name might be better.)
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to the points already made, passive voice is painfully boring to read. And it's literally everywhere in technical documentation, unfortunately.
I don't think it's boring. It's easy to come up with examples of the passive voice that aren't boring at all. It's everywhere in the best writing up to the 19th century. You just don't notice it when it's used well unless you're looking for it. Consider: > Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. This would not be improved by r…
I think what you were saying is that it depends entirely on the type of writing you’re doing and who your audience is.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#148[dead]
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#149Anyone who has worked at a B2B startup with a rouge sales team won't be surprised at all by quickly pivoting the backlog in response to a hallucinated missing feature.
I'm guessing you meant "a sales team that has gone rogue" [1], not "a sales team whose product is rouge" [2]? ;-) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_(cosmetics)
Rouge océan, peut-être ;)
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#150> Should we really be developing features in response to misinformation? Creating the feature means it's no longer misinformation. The bigger issue isn't that ChatGPT produces misinformation - it's that it takes less effort to update reality to match ChatGPT than it takes to update ChatGPT to match reality. Expect to see even more of this as we match toward accepting ChatGPT's reality over other sources.
This seems like such a negative framing. LLMs are (~approximately) predictors of what's either logical or at least probable. For areas where what's probable is wrong and also harmful, I don't think anybody is motivated to "update reality" as some kind of general rule.