161–170 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were punished by my university for AI-assisted plagiarism I didn't commit, you're damn right I would sue. Imagine getting your life ruined because a neural network deemed it necessary. These things are wrong half the time, why does anyone trust them?
Your damn wrong that I wouldn't. I'd quit. I didn't go to university to go to court.
- build a class of writers/students who insist they've been unfairly fired
- take publicly available copy that predates Chat GPT etc
- run it through popular plagiarism checkers
- get a high number of false positives
- sue for defamation
Startup idea: online text editor that logs every keystroke and blockchains a hash of all logs every day. If you're accused of AI use, you can pull up the whole painstaking writing process and prove it's real.
Startup idea: keep humans in liquid-filled pods, connecting sensors to their central nervous system, and record every nerve impulse they generate. This way we can be 100% sure that those nerve impulses were generated by humans, and not an AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a dehumanizing system. Have we lost our way, HN? Are we so immersed in the bleakness of tech, it comes so naturally for us, to propose "hey, let's create surveillance machines to perpetually watch people working, for the rest of their productive lives" and it's something we have to pause and think about? Let's not build Hell on Earth for whatever reason it momentarily seems to make business sense.
Wait so you are saying Hell on Earth would be good for business?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a dehumanizing system. Have we lost our way, HN? Are we so immersed in the bleakness of tech, it comes so naturally for us, to propose "hey, let's create surveillance machines to perpetually watch people working, for the rest of their productive lives" and it's something we have to pause and think about? Let's not build Hell on Earth for whatever reason it momentarily seems to make business sense.
Wait so you are saying Hell on Earth would be good for business?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>An overkill variant to rub salt in the wounds of duped investors: make the script control a finger bot on an X/Y harness, so it literally presses the physical keys of a physical keyboard according to LLM output. That's how the first automated trading firms operated in the 80s. NASDAQ required all trades to be input via physical terminals, so they build an upside down "keyboard" with linear actuators in place of the…
That article is infuriating. Classic 'it was great when I did it, now it's gone too far.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conceptually it seems like the average of all human texts would be distinct from any users because it would blend word choices and idioms across regions, where most of us are trained and reinforced in a particular region. Other statistical anomalies probably exist; it is certainly possible to tell that an average is from a larger or smaller sample size (if I tell you X fair coin flips came up heads 75% of the time, y…
> Conceptually it seems like the average of all human texts would be distinct from any users because it would blend word choices and idioms across regions That's only true in the aggregate. Within a single answer, LLMs will try to generate a word choice which is more likely _given the preceding word choices in that answer_, which should reduce the blending of idioms. > where most of us are trained and reinforced in a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the correct text anyway? Exactly. The fact that language is fuzzy is why LLMs work so well. The issue is that most people expect computers to not make mistakes. When you write a formula in an excel sheet, the computer doesn’t mess up the math. The average non tech person knows that humans make mistakes, but are not used to computers making mistakes. Many people, maybe most, would see an answer generated by…
The word you're looking for is "any", not "average". As in, it can write like any human, any way you want it to. Not just as some "average human".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the correct text anyway? Exactly. The fact that language is fuzzy is why LLMs work so well. The issue is that most people expect computers to not make mistakes. When you write a formula in an excel sheet, the computer doesn’t mess up the math. The average non tech person knows that humans make mistakes, but are not used to computers making mistakes. Many people, maybe most, would see an answer generated by…
What do you mean they aren't used to computers making mistakes? Have they ever asked Siri/Alexa something and got useless answers? Have they ever seen ASR or OCR software making mistakes? Have they called semi-automated call centers with prompt "say what you need instead of clicking numbers" only to hear repeated "sorry, I don't understand you" until you scream "connect me to a bloody human"? Have they ever seen a si…
I don’t really think there’s much left for us to talk about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely, it's a tech that aims to write the most average, most likely human text.
LLMs don't average , they learn the distribution , from which you then sample (or the UI does it for you). Because of that, they don't write in a single style that's a blend of many human styles - they can write in any and all of the human styles they saw in training , as well as blend them to create styles entirely "out of distribution". And it's up to your prompt (and sampling parameters) which style will be used.