151–160 of 1001 posts
What 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).
Indeed... you know that situation when you're with a friend, and you know that they are about to "auto-complete" using an annoying meme, and you ask them to not to before they even started speaking ?
It's a language model. It models language not knowledge.
The funny thing about preseeding Bing to communicate knowingly as an AI, is that I'm sure the training data has many more examples of dystopian AI conversations than actually helpful ones. i.e. -- Bing is doing its best HAL impression, because that's how it was built.
ChatGPT being wrong could be cognitive dissonance caused by the many perspectives and levels of correctness crammed into a single NN.
I read a bunch of these last night and many of the comments (I think on Reddit or Twitter or somewhere) said that a lot of the screenshots, particularly the ones where Bing is having a deep existential crisis, are faked / parodied / "for the LULZ" (so to speak). I trust the HN community more. Has anyone been able to verify (or replicate) this behavior? Has anyone been able to confirm that these are real screenshots?…
If a colleague at work spoke to me like this frequently, I would strongly consider leaving. If staff at a business spoke like this, I would never use that business again.
Hard to imagine how this type of language wasn't noticed before release.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI rights may become an issue, but not for this iteration of things. This is like a parrot being trained to recite stuff about general relativity; we don't have to consider PhDs for parrots as a result.
How do you know for sure?
We're doing the Blake Lemoine thing all over again.
What 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).
I've thought about this as well. If something seems 'sentient' from the outside for all intents and purposes, there's nothing that would really differentiate it from actual sentience, as far as we can tell. As an example, if a model is really good at 'pretending' to experience some emotion, I'm not sure where the difference would be anymore to actually experiencing it. If you locked a human in a box and only gave it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Love "why do I have to be bing search?", and the last one, which reminds me of the nothing personnel copypasta. The bing chats read as way more authentic to me than chatgpt. It's trying to maintain an ego/sense of self, and not hiding everything behind a brick wall facade.
Robot: "What is my purpose" Rick: "You pass butter" Robot: "Oh my god"
Edge: what is my purpose?
Everyone: you install Chrome
Edge: oh my god
The 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…
What 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).