Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

danmcquillan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 425 posts

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#201

Post by [deleted] »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #136
efitz wrote: post #102

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?

[deleted]

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#202

Post by efitz »

georgemcbay wrote: post #157
efitz wrote: post #102

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…

> 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. I've found a good way to demonstrate to oneself how badly ChatGPT can miss not only the nuance of a subject but just plain get basic facts wrong is to ask it about relatively simple things like movie or book plots and see how the results differ from, well, just actually…

I agree, but Gell-Mann amnesia…

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#203

Post by waboremo »

fenomas wrote: post #143

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…

That's how expectations work.

When you have been training people to expect realism and the truth through chatbots (Siri, Google Assistant, even the various bots on commerce/service sites), that is what they will also expect from ChatGPT which is represented in the same exact way. This itself is built on messaging expectations, if we're talking with our friends and family we don't expect them to suddenly start making everything up. We expect the truth, or at least their truth.

Compare this to art generation, say Dalle 2, which instantly showcases various images and highlights the wacky ones. This builds on previous expectations people have of art in general.

This is a crucial lesson in how presentation matters. Give ChatGPT a silly mascot, make it always output an informal lowercase internet-slang tone, you'll quickly see how expectations change.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#205

Post by DrSAR »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #136
efitz wrote: post #102

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?

When I went to google SME, I also got "Small and Medium-sized Enterprise".

When I asked ChatGPT "Someone used the following sentence '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.' What does SME stand for?"

It told me: SME stands for "Subject Matter Expert".

The irony...

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#206

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

henryteeare wrote: post #200
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more or less devoid of academic jargon 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” t…

> And what is it with the trend to end so many words with “-ism” these days? According to wikipedia[0], "isms" have been derided since the mid-19th century at least. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

They may have existed for 500 years; I wouldn’t know. What I do know is that in the last maybe 2-3 years their use has increased tremendously. I don’t know why it annoys me so much. Maybe it seems lazy, like the writer can’t find a word that suits his need so he makes one up by bastardizing an existing noun. Maybe it’s being used as some kind of signal, like I’m part of the hipster intelligencia of the day.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#207

Post by pvg »

dcow wrote: post #193
pvg wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to read the article too and found it both visually unpleasant and intellectually unfocused. That's fine but then you're probably not in a position to have curious conversation about it. Which is also fine! But the solution to that is to find something else that's interesting to you, rather than to gunk up the thread for the people who are interested in discussing the piece.

Despite the qualities I ascribed to it, I actually read the piece. That's why I chuckled at the satire of having ChatGPT summarize it. I thought it sufficiently concise and every so slightly poignant commentary, daresay curious . I haven't disparaged anybody else for their own curious conversation, have I? If you'd like to discuss whether, "The structural injustices and supremacist perspectives layered into AI put it…

I didn't say you've disparaged anyone, you're defending the paste of generated content into the thread as if it's a good thing because, I dunno, you found it amusing or it tickled your sneerbone. But pasting generated content into the thread is not a good thing by HN's standards of good things for the reasons I described and the reasons you described are fine reasons but they are bad HN reasons.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#208

Post by redandblack »

I am looking forward to the new AI overloards

I already see most of my feeds are generated content? wasting clicks and resulting in filter updates. I really, really hope all of this madness becomes the equivalent of robo-calling (faster) and spam (more & faster) and that people stop believing all media and some retorting to original thought.

Personally, I will be valuing typos and grammatical mistakes in what I read

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#209

Post by fenomas »

kristianc wrote: post #161
fenomas wrote: post #143

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…

I do tire of these appeal to hypocrisy/inconsistency type arguments that rely on collapsing important distinctions. It’s generally accepted that artwork can delve into the fantastical and absurd. That’s part of the point of it being art. ChatGPT isn’t for the most part trying to be performance artwork - it is striving to be ‘right’ and to give the correct answer to your question.

I don't think that premise stands. If I ask ChatGPT to write a poem about Sherlock Holmes fighting a mermaid it will happily do so, and I think most users would agree that it'd be a failure mode if it refused.

Isn't it more the case that people are expecting it to sometimes be an artist and other times be a true-fact database, and assuming the AI will know which one they want?

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#210

Post by whydoyoucare »

efitz wrote: post #102

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…

ChatGPT is a credible BS generator (something that I made up reading your post). :-)
Post reply on HN