191–200 of 309 posts
I always wondered who is the customer of Wolfram Alpha asking for solution of an integral? (A part from students
I'm almost offended by the "cubic light year of ice cream" answer from ChatGPT. It's obviously ridiculous but is also a fairly simply dimensional analysis problem. Do the damn math, don't wag your finger at me and crush my dreams! I'm pretty bullish on ChatGPT and its ilk, but I _really_ dislike when ChatGPT lectures me because my request is against its "moral values." I recently pasted in the lyrics from Sleep's tit…
> Do the damn math Wolfram's point, which is valid, is that ChatGPT can't do the damn math. That's simply not what it does. To do things like do accurate math, you need a different kind of model, one that is based on having actual facts about the world, generated by a process that is semantically linked to the world. For example, Wolfram uses the example of asking ChatGPT the distance from Chicago to Tokyo; it gives…
Or you just need a model that can recognize math, and then pass it to a system that can do math. Math is actually something traditional, non-AI systems are very good at doing (it is the raison d’être of traditional computing), so if an AI model can simply recognize that math needs to do be done, there is no reason for it to do the math.
I'm surprised this isn't on the front page.
I'm almost offended by the "cubic light year of ice cream" answer from ChatGPT. It's obviously ridiculous but is also a fairly simply dimensional analysis problem. Do the damn math, don't wag your finger at me and crush my dreams! I'm pretty bullish on ChatGPT and its ilk, but I _really_ dislike when ChatGPT lectures me because my request is against its "moral values." I recently pasted in the lyrics from Sleep's tit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t make sense at all. Why choose to be insanely expensive? I guess by the time you’ve signed a contract there’s a lot of sunk cost ($1000 to be exact) but I can’t understand that strategy long-term.
Back to the original comment: >If they took off the minimum commitment it would open this up to a lot more people. That's literally the point. They don't want a lot more people, if you price something such that anyone can pick it up and try it you're going to have to put a lot of effort into support and fielding queries from these small customers and some businesses just aren't interested in that. Yeah, maybe it turn…
Wolfram (both the man and the company) simply doesn't appreciate the value of user-contributions and decentralized communities of practitioners. They've published blog statements defending their model [0] and explaining how everyone who wants anything different is actually misunderstanding their value prop [1].
Wolfram also makes no meaningful attempts at cultivating any sort of internal desire to use their products. I'm pretty sure we'd have to pry Matlab from the cold, dead hands of our controls people. We terminated our (~6 figure?) Wolfram contact because less than a dozen people used the products, Wolfram support was non-existent, and IT put their foot down on maintaining the license server.
[0] https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-op...
[1] https://blog.wolfram.com/2021/11/30/six-reasons-why-the-wolf...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is not required for any of this, so it’s not a meaningful threat. All of these AI safety discussions seem to dismiss the fact that people can draw, use photoshop, and write, creating whatever they want, all by themselves, and have been doing it for somewhere between a few thousand years to a few decades.
I am not going to build a murderbot, regardless of whether someone else could commit a murder.
I am not going to build a chainsaw, regardless of whether someone else could commit a stabbing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If ChatGPT had no restrictions then the only limit would be your imagination. “Rank all major races by programming ability” “Write a paragraph explaining why being gay is a choice.” I’m sure you can extrapolate from there.
But how do you use that to cause actual harm? Most websites would ban such content, and I doubt ChatGPT could convince many people to become racist. Other user gave an interesting idea: they could use it to trick you into disliking some group by pretending to be members of that group. For example, spreading the most extreme ideas of that group to make the whole group look a lot more extreme than it is.
It is very easy to use it to harm OpenAI, and that is enough for OpenAI to wish to constrain it. You cause it to write something objectionable and then publish it to reap all the attention and ad-revenue which goes with people being outraged. Best if you manage to provoke into outrage inducing output without your prompt itself being outrageous, but not strictly necessary. During this OpenAI’s reputation would be harmed.
This is not even hypothetical. There was that microsoft chatbot which “turned nazi”.[1] They then had to turn it off.
Did it do many other interesting things? Probably. Yet the few problematic outputs is what we remember it by.
1: https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-ch...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
? not even the wokest people I know (and I know some pretty woke people) disagree that there are biological differences between men and women (when talking about sex, not gender).
One general comment I'll give to this. Combining neural networks (like ChatGPT) and logical (like Wolfram Alpha) AI systems has been the aim of many people for 30 years. If someone manages it well, it will be a massive step forward for AI, probably bigger than the progress made by the GPTs so far. However, while there are lots of ideas, no-one knows how to do it (that I know of), and unlike the GPTs, it isn't a probl…
This was a really reasonable and interesting post by Stephen. I'm excited to see what the integration between an associative based model like GPT and a symbolic one like WA might bring.