181–190 of 425 posts
"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.
Most of these phenomena are emergent of human/capital/government interactions; they are not planned.
It's so weird to me when apparently tech-savvy people say ChatGPT "lies", or call it a bullshit generator and so on. I mean - when you ask StableDiffusion to draw a dog astronaut, everyone gets that the image it returns is made-up, right? Nobody expects the AI to return only "true" images of existing things - it was trained on fictional images as well as photographs, and people understand that it can imagine new thin…
On one hand, you're talking about how AI produces artwork from prompts, where you're expecting the output to be made up/fictional.
And on the other hand you're talking about ChatGPT which is something that a lot of laymen are looking like a replacement for tons of things like copywriters, software engineers, Google search, etc. Every single one of these things have a pretty high requirement for the output to be at least pretty close to accurate. If anything I don't think a lot of the people who have an issue with ChatGPT (myself included) actually have an issue with ChatGPT itself, but rather with the tons of people, laymen and otherwise who have pointed to it as the metaphorical AI singularity when in reality it is little more than a iteration on existing AI models packaged in a better form for people to understand it.
It's so weird to me when apparently tech-savvy people say ChatGPT "lies", or call it a bullshit generator and so on. I mean - when you ask StableDiffusion to draw a dog astronaut, everyone gets that the image it returns is made-up, right? Nobody expects the AI to return only "true" images of existing things - it was trained on fictional images as well as photographs, and people understand that it can imagine new thin…
The image generators accept a prompt, not a question, so we don't expect an answer.
ChatGPT generates responses to prompts that make it sound like it is answering a question that is posed.
Ask ChatGPT a question. The mere fact that I can fairly reasonably pose that as "asking it a question" is why people get confused. It's very easy to interact with it conversationally, and weird to interact with it otherwise because the text it generates is conversational. A generated image is never a conversation, so of course it isn't an answer and so can't be wrong.
Clickbait article. Same was said about the Internet back then! Also reminds of people doing symbolic AI (decision trees and stuff) that kept criticizing NNs telling they don't work, will never be able to tell why they have this output (it's even wrong), etc.
They had some good points though. The article says that this technology centralizes power in the hands of rich tech companies who exploit low paid workers and unpaid creators who do the value creating work. The tech companies organize the data then endlessly skim off the top. At the same time they maintain undemocratic control of who can see what information, guided by profit and sometimes authoritarian governments.
These are all the same criticisms of the walled garden internet and theyre just as relevant for LLM’s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm not getting the point of your question. It's different in that junior programmers are still people, capable of much more than LLMs are. But yes, it's the same shortsighted executive intent.
My point is that the direction and management that you outline is as relevant to GPT as it is to a team of (sufficiently) junior developers. And, given that people find utility in Github copilot, I'm not convinced that the difference between GPT and a junior developer is qualitative rather than quantitative. Regardless of whether LLMs are demonstrating intelligence or creativity, they are already writing productive c…
but even if it's true, I think it's a case I've covered in the paragraph after the one you quote.
Ludites strike again. ChatGPT is smarter than 99% of humanity. period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One way to see this is to realize that code bases on their own are generally worthless in the sense that people rarely pay much money for them. They pay for users. They pay for teams. But they don't generally pay for raw code This is something I've thought for a while. If Google's source code was leaked tomorrow, would it even matter? Almost certainly not, and most people probably couldn't do much with it either.
I’ve worked at another FAANG, and I used to joke all the time that if our code leaked it would give us a competitive advantage because the folks copying would have to spend so much time implementing our bloated code and god-awful build tools that they would probably go bankrupt.
This is embarrassing.
But until someone cracks the common sense problem, ChatGPT is not all that useful, because the output is often totally wrong.
I skimmed his book, and I don't know, man. His thesis as I understand it is a viewpoint I have held for a while now --- artificial intelligence does things that humans do, but faster. It's a force multiplier. Hence your views on AI are likely to correspond directly to your views on those groups who hold power. McQuillan approaches this from an intersectional lens and arrives at entirely predictable conclusions. It's…
His article is perfectly reasonable, straightforward, and logical. It’s also more or less devoid of academic jargon. He makes clear points that are easy to relate to. Can’t speak to his book. Why do you think admitting that technological solutionism isn’t going to save us means we’re fucked? Are you that cynical/have that little faith in humanity? There are clearly alternative modes of structuring society that we can…
Really? What the heck does this mean:
> Contemporary AI, as I argue in my book, is an assemblage for automatising administrative violence and amplifying austerity. ChatGPT is a part of a reality distortion field that obscures the underlying extractivism
Administrative violence? Reality distortion field? Extractivism?
What is it with the trend to end so many words with “-ism” these days? Am i just supposed to understand any word that ends in -ism as some new hipster lingo? Whatthefuckism!
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?