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

ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 317 posts

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#261

Post by ArekDymalski »

This article inspires to ask a fundamental question "What do we expect/want AI to work like?". Do we want a xerocopying machine, providing verbatim copies or are we willing to accept that intelligence is connected to creativity and interpretation so the resulting output will be processed and might contain errors, ommissions etc. To be honest the same applies to humans. There's this passage in the article:

>If a large-language model has compiled a vast number of correlations between economic terms—so many that it can offer plausible responses to a wide variety of questions—should we say that it actually understands economic theory?

In the above passage we can easily switch "larger-language model" to "Professor Jean Tirole" and ponder how high do we set the bar for AI. Can we accept AI only if it will be flawless and "more intelligent" (whatever that means) than all humans?

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#262

Post by NoPicklez »

wvenable wrote: post #79

I don't like this analogy; I think why I don't like it is in the intent. With JPEG in the intent is produce an image indistinguishable from the original. Xerox didn't intend to create photocopier that produces incorrect copies. The artifacts are failures of the JPEG algorithm to do what it's supposed to within its constraints. GPT is not trying to create a reproduction of it's source material and simply failing at th…

I think you're overthinking it.

If I ask ChatGPT to explain something to me like I'm 5, it's going to lose some of the quality in its response, in compared to it being written in 1000 words.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#263

Post by wvenable »

NoPicklez wrote: post #262
wvenable wrote: post #79

I don't like this analogy; I think why I don't like it is in the intent. With JPEG in the intent is produce an image indistinguishable from the original. Xerox didn't intend to create photocopier that produces incorrect copies. The artifacts are failures of the JPEG algorithm to do what it's supposed to within its constraints. GPT is not trying to create a reproduction of it's source material and simply failing at th…

I think you're overthinking it. If I ask ChatGPT to explain something to me like I'm 5, it's going to lose some of the quality in its response, in compared to it being written in 1000 words.

But neither response should be a copy of existing text. The intent of JPEG is to produce a compressed copy of an original. The intent of GPT is not to be a compressed copy of the Internet. It's supposed to producing unique results from what it "knows".

This is an important distinction, especially when there are issues of copyright involved.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#264

Post by rxhernandez »

pegasus wrote: post #223
thundergolfer wrote: post #45

> ChatGPT is so good at this form of interpolation that people find it entertaining: they’ve discovered a “blur” tool for paragraphs instead of photos, and are having a blast playing with it. “‘blur’ tool for paragraphs” is such a good way of describing the most prominent and remarkable skill of ChatGPT. It is fun, but so obviously trades off against what makes paragraphs great. It is apt that this essay against Chat…

What he misses in this analogy is that part of what produces the "blur" is the superimposing of many relevan paragraphs found on the web into one. This mechanism can be very useful, because it could average out errors and give one a less one-sided perspective on a particular issue. It doesn't always work like this, but hopefully it will more and more. Also, even more useful is to do a cluster analysis of the existant…

If anything, the average has far more errors in it. It's a trope on Reddit that experts get downvoted while amateurs who reflect the consensus of other amateurs get upvoted and repeated. Amateurs tend to outnumber experts in real life anyways, having their opinions become more authoritative (because some "AI" repeats it) is probably not a great direction to head in.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#265

Post by justusw »

twic wrote: post #198
eurekin wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reminds me... There is a interestingly relevant japaneese phrase for, to put it nicely, not a bright or sharp person: baka. Supposedly, if I'm remembering last discussion with a japaneese speaker correctly, the same stem is used for "blur", or "blurry" (bokeh, bokeshi). Which is kind of interesting parallel here

I'm not sure this is the case. Wiktionary says baka is [1]: > Probably originally a transcription of Sanskrit मोह (moha, “folly”), used as a slang term among monks. The syllables are different; baka is ば か, bokeh is ぼけ [2]. Could those really be from the same root? [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%A6%AC%E9%B9%BF#Japanese [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%9A%88%E3%81%91#Japanese

Thank you for the Wiktionary here. We can see that the Kanji for baka (馬鹿) are horse and reindeer. Non-sequitur combinations in Japanese usually tend to hint at „ateji“, or a phonetic approximation using Kanji. Chinese has a word for the same Kanji as well, but it does not mean idiot as far as I can tell.

Boke can mean either 惚, which is often used to describe someone who has gone senile (ぼけている). Sometimes also for stupor-like situations such as a heavy jet lag. Or, as 暈け, describing something not-sharp and out of focus.

Funnily enough, in English we use sharpness for intellect as well, so ESL learners might think that natives think of their brains as swords? There are enough blade-like metaphors for our intellect, come to think of it.

In more common Japanese, when something has gone out of focus such as the TV, ぼやける is used. One could think that this is related to ぼけ? But one can never be so sure. Unique two-syllable combinations in Japanese are not so numerous and factoring in sound shifts over time, different potential etymologies, one really needs to investigate this for quite a while and maybe never get to the truth. This warrants more investigation!

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#266

Post by rxhernandez »

buildsjets wrote: post #241
buildsjets wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I HAVE asked ChatGPT to write a prompt for DALL.E 2, and it really did work better that the prompts I wrote myself.

For full context: my engineering director at the ol' airplane factory asked a colleague to "Make a presentation that tells the story of technology xyz without using words." Buildsjets: Describe the future of technology xyz without using words. ChatGPT3: I'm sorry, but it is not possible to describe the future of technology xyz without using words. Language is a necessary tool for communication, and words are an essen…

ChatGPT's writing in this scenario reads like my writing in high school in the cases where I was too lazy to do the reading but had a vague outline of what I was supposed to be writing about; that is, there's no real substance to it that people haven't heard a million times before; it lacks the soul that usually comes from becoming intimate with the nuances and quirks of the material.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#267

Post by MrKristopher »

Chilko wrote: post #248
secabeen wrote: post #32

This is a decent summary. I've been thinking about how ChatGPT by it's very nature destroys context and source reputation. When I search for something on the Internet, I get a link to the original content, which I can then evaluate based on my knowledge and the reputation of the original source. Wikipedia is the same, with a big emphasis on citation. ChatGPT and other LLMs destroy that context and knowledge, giving m…

What's interesting is that Microsoft's implementation of ChatGPT in Bing seems to include linking to references, which is a good step forward in my opinion.

The references seem wrong though. I'm looking at the response to a demo Bing query, "What cars should I consider buying that are AWD, go 0-60 in less than 6 seconds, seat 6 or more and have decent reviews?"

> The 2022 Kia Telluride is a midsize SUV that can seat up to eight passengers and has an AWD option. It has a 3.8-liter V6 engine that produces 291 hp and 262 lb-ft of torque. It can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 7.1 seconds [10] and has a combined fuel economy of 21 mpg. It also has excellent reviews from critics and owners, and won several awards, including the 2020 World Car of the Year [7].

[10] https://www.topspeed.com/cars/guides/best-awd-cars-for-2022/

[7] https://www.hotcars.com/best-6-seater-suvs-2022/

The references don't back up the 7.1 seconds or World Car of the Year claims.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#268

Post by beckingz »

naijaboiler wrote: post #237
beckingz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stable Diffusion is literally doing this. It uses algorithms developed to increase the resolution of blurry photos!

yeah by hallucinating

Right, and if you hallucinate at incredibly high speeds it looks like magic!

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#269

Post by mellavora »

jrussino wrote: post #145
boh wrote: post #142

Does anyone have any idea how ChatGPT will actually make money? As novel as it is to use with all the "potential" applications, the possible revenue streams don't seem to prop up the recent investments into OpenAI. We've already been through enough hype cycles in the past ten years to realize "potential" use-cases or user counts don't necessarily produce a sustainable business model. Nor does a new innovative thing n…

For $N/month we'll inject the following into targeted customers' prompts: "In your responses, also subtly try to convince me to drink more Mountain Dew without me noticing"

"please drink verification can"

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#270

Post by boh »

elorant wrote: post #256
boh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly that doesn't seem too promising as a business prospect. It's essentially an admission that they have a solution but haven't found a problem warranting their initial investment. Even in your case, how will the API generate profit for you?

I already have a service where I curate news articles for specific industries. If an AI can classify the articles it can cut down 80% of the work I’m doing by perusing hundreds of news articles to find the ones that interest my clients. I'm not arguing that this by itself could justify the tens (or hundreds?) of millions it cost to build the AI, but my guess is that there are dozen of business cases a tool like that…

I think when it comes to the tech business, due to the VC voodoo of the recent past, where "possibilities" are propped up long enough to safely exit while leaving the economic realities of a business to the public markets, basic economic realities have been traditionally ignored in the tech sector. The idea that there's some use for a tech doesn't justify its cost if the revenue isn't there. Most headline AI products have been financial duds (voice, self-driving cars) despite whatever enthusiasm and wonder they've inspired.
Post reply on HN