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

261–270 of 425 posts

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

#261

Post by emodendroket »

csomar wrote: post #181
hsuduebc2 wrote: post #95

"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.

It delves into conspiracy theory. It ignores that these kind of organizations are still not possible (bunch of elite powerful people making plans for all of earth in order to control them). Most of these phenomena are emergent of human/capital/government interactions; they are not planned.

I don't think it's a "smoky rooms" kind of thing so much as people naturally perceiving what their class interests are and acting accordingly. Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest farmers, as a group, generally support policies that are beneficial for farming?

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

#262

Post by fenomas »

rojobuffalo wrote: post #232
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…

Do you mean dog astronaut as an example of a lie? Because there have been dog astronauts.

Fair point ;) Yes, I meant it as a "cow riding a motorcycle" kind of example - concepts the AI knows about in a configuration it hasn't seen.

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

#263

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#264

Post by whoopdeepoo »

est wrote: post #221
AussieWog93 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if you're not a SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise? What's SME in this instance?

This thread is weird. Are the comments made by bots unaware of each other? https://i.imgur.com/t6ilhR7.png

Subject matter expert

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

#265

Post by skissane »

emodendroket wrote: post #249
osigurdson wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT helps a lot but it is necessary to take everything with a grain of salt - so what? It still can save a lot of time. Just Alt-tab ChatGPT/Google. Adjust your mental model from what you think it should be to what it actually is.

I hear this a lot but I don't find it convincing. If I know enough to know if the answer is good or bad, why would I be asking a chat bot? We could say this problem is somewhat analogous to sorting good StackOverflow answers from bad ones. But I feel that there are things like writing and presentation style (not to mention the votes and comments) that could tip me off to a bad answer that are absent when every answer…

> If I know enough to know if the answer is good or bad, why would I be asking a chat bot?

If you are trying to write a blog/essay/etc on a topic, it can help with “writer’s block”-you may know a lot about the topic already, but struggle with putting that understanding into words. And then it isn’t hard to filter ChatGPT’s output based on your pre-existing knowledge.

Sometimes I don’t know the answer to the specific question I am asking it, but still have enough background knowledge of the topic to pick up when it is likely to be “hallucinating”

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

#266

Post by makach »

I am using chatGPT and whenever I am working with a chat I am usually surprised of the initial quality and as I am breaking down the results it becomes clear to me that the content is problematic and cannot be used without properly interpreting it and set it in context. However it does help in the creative process, to both exclude and include elements that are relevant. It is incredibly important that you have insight enough to be able to check and understand the results in order to not be confused or fooled by the service.

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

#268

Post by nailer »

Gatsky wrote: post #56

> However, as I spell out in my book, the concept of AGI is inseparable from the kind of hierarchy of intelligence that has underpinned ideas of innate supremacy since the days of empire and colonialism. I think this line discredits the entire article, which was already a few obvious points blown at gale force into the reader’s ear.

Likewise that author seems to be disappointed that models have found a connection between Islam and violence.

The author may find this discovery distasteful, but that is irrelevant: Islam is an idea, many ideas are associated with violence. Islam was famously “spread through the sword” and to this day violent retribution is often visited upon ex-Muslims by their families in the name of Islam. This isn’t hate speech: Islam is an idea that people adopt and leave, and not an innate quality. To treat any idea like an innate quality denies people the right to not accept the ideas of those around them.

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

#269

Post by lukev »

tambourine_man wrote: post #223
root_axis wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't speak for what's "all the way down", but on whatever level humans perform reflective reasoning, it's self-evident that we don't simply "predict the next word" in the way a LLM does. Whether or not a LLM is capable of "creating anything new" is a different argument altogether. "New" is in eye of the beholder and it is often said that nothing is new under the sun, but we already know that unthinking processes w…

Please provide evidence that intelligent speech isn’t simply predicting the next word, as it’s obviously not self-evident to me.

I'm not sure it counts as "evidence" because I can't show it to you, but based on personal introspection, whenever I write something it starts with a barely-linguistic thought I want to communicate that gradually gets expanded into as much prose as is necessary to get across the concept whilst establishing context and defending from the most probable detractors.

I literally never just start writing and then just keep adding words.

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

#270

Post by osigurdson »

sfpotter wrote: post #258
osigurdson wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT helps a lot but it is necessary to take everything with a grain of salt - so what? It still can save a lot of time. Just Alt-tab ChatGPT/Google. Adjust your mental model from what you think it should be to what it actually is.

The slippery slope here isn’t obvious to you? Or you just don’t care?

I suppose it isn't obvious to me and I perhaps don't care. I'm not going to get stressed about being made obsolete by AI, etc., if that is what you mean. That could happen but so could a lot of things. Of course, I may have completely missed what you meant by slippery slope.
Post reply on HN