Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

biblioracle.substack.com

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#31

If this argument is true it implies an unintended but very bleak corollary about what things aren't really worth preserving, if you start to think about what things aren't thriving in the economy with competition from LLMs. Trusted phone communication, visual art, rule of law, academic peer review, the news, search engines, question and answer platforms, etc

How is ChatGPT or anything else killing visual art? The entire zeitgeist at the moment is dismissive and bored of AI generated material already.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#32
"I cannot emphasize this enough: ChatGPT is not generating meaning. It is arranging word patterns. I could tell GPT to add in an anomaly for the 1970s - like the girl looking at Billy’s Instagram - and it would introduce it into the text without a comment about being anomalous."

I asked ChatGPT to introduce the girl looking at Billy's instagram. The response:

"Instagram didn't exist in the 1970s. Do you want to keep the setting authentic to the '70s or update the story to a contemporary timeframe where Instagram fits naturally?"

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#33
post #6

It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…

> To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. This certainly isn't "random," but insisting that that's what the technology does isn't some sad psychological defense mechanism. It's a statement of fact. > as if human reasoning isn’t built upon recognizing patterns in past experiences. Everybody will be re…

Prediction is not the same as pattern matching.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#34
post #6

It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…

> To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. This certainly isn't "random," but insisting that that's what the technology does isn't some sad psychological defense mechanism. It's a statement of fact. > as if human reasoning isn’t built upon recognizing patterns in past experiences. Everybody will be re…

> LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do.

You certainly understand that if they can successfully predict the tokens that a great poet, a great scientist or a great philosopher would write, then everything changes- starting from our status of sole, and rare, generators of intelligent thoughts and clever artifacts.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#35
post #31

If this argument is true it implies an unintended but very bleak corollary about what things aren't really worth preserving, if you start to think about what things aren't thriving in the economy with competition from LLMs. Trusted phone communication, visual art, rule of law, academic peer review, the news, search engines, question and answer platforms, etc

How is ChatGPT or anything else killing visual art? The entire zeitgeist at the moment is dismissive and bored of AI generated material already.

The zeitgeist of trendy under-40s and their cultural opinions is all well and good but it has almost nothing to do with hiring

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#36
post #30

Maybe this is propaganda and you are being told what to think. Of course AI isn’t going to be a good thing for the majority of humans at all. But it’s very important to manage sentiment within tech audiences.

Why not? Similarly to how "Google" and "Wikipedia" will make people more dumb? Or how the video killed the radio star? I think the cultural or intellectual decline does not have to do much with Google (in terms of search) nor Wikipedia. Heck, some people do not even know how to search properly.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#38
post #6

It’s always baffling how people take a technology that wasn’t even thought as feasible a decade ago and try to dismiss it as trivial and stagnant. It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive. To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. It’s also amusing that people mi…

> It’s pretty clear that LLMs have improved rapidly and have successfully become better writers than the majority of people alive

But that doesn't help much, because for the majority of our writing that's not the issue. LLMs might out do professional writers some day, but without imagination and the desire to sent a message I doubt it will happen any time soon.

Where LLMs are useful is in professional communication, because you're right, an LLM can technically write better than most. The issue is that you need to tell the LLM what message you want to convey, and that's where most people fall down. You also need to be able to critically read back your text, place yourself in the position of the receiver of your text, LLM generated or not. Most people, even those in professional communication can't do that.

I believe the author is on to something, ChatGPT (and others) are perfectly good tools, and can replace most if not all of the shitty communication and writing, including journalism, present in the world. What it can't do is replace the few really good communicators. Communication is hard, not a lot of people can do it and no LLM is going to help you if you can't formulate your message clearly on your own.

There is a darker side of this argument. If something can be killed of by an LLM, is it even worth having? This argument throws a great number of "professionals" under the bus, instantly reducing the value of their jobs to zero. I have family members who do communication for the city, they spend an exorbitant amount of time on flyers, newsletters, Facebook posts and so on, detailing city work, future plan, past events, all that stuff. I doubt anyone really reads it, most of it could probably be written by an LLM, because it always excludes the "why are we doing this", "why should you care" or even "this is expected to impact you in this way". I get a million update from the school about restructuring, hiring of administrators, org-reshuffling... it could all be done by an LLM, but the fact is: No one gives a shit. They just want regular updates from the teachers, and the LLM can't do that.

Communication is hard, and LLMs don't change that, they can only help you write out your message, you have to come up with that yourself, and that's the hard part.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#39
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To try and present this as just random pattern matching seems as just a way to assuage fears of being replaced. LLMs are token predictors. That's all they do. This certainly isn't "random," but insisting that that's what the technology does isn't some sad psychological defense mechanism. It's a statement of fact. > as if human reasoning isn’t built upon recognizing patterns in past experiences. Everybody will be re…

> LLMs are token predictors. And neural nets are "just" matrix multiplications, human brains are "just" chemical reactions

I don't know why you're quoting, or stressing, a word I didn't use.

I once got into an argument with a date about the existence of God and the soul. She asked whether I really think we're "just" physical stuff. I told her, "no, I'm not saying we're 'just' physical stuff. I'm saying we're physical stuff." That 'just' is simply a statement of how she feels about the idea, not a criticism of what I was claiming. I don't accept that there's anything missing if we're atoms rather than atoms plus magic, because I don't feel any need for there to be magic.

Your brain is indeed physical stuff. You also have a mind. You experience your own mind and perceive yourself as an intending being with a guiding intelligence. How that relates to or arises from the physical stuff is not well understood, but everything we know about the properties and capabilities of the mind tells us that it is inextricably related to the body that gives rise to it.

Neural nets are indeed matrix multiplication. If you're implying that there is a guiding intelligence, just as there is in the mind, I think you're off in La La Land.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#40
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't interrogate your qualia. A lot of people think (or really, feel) that makes them magic. It doesn't. But if you feel they're magic, you'll never believe that a "random" mechanical process, which you think you can interrogate, could ever really have that spark.

Welcome on hackernews, where thousands years old philosophical problems are solved through plain assertions!

Turns out we have technologies and experiences with technology which weren't possible until very recently. Some things just look very different in hindsight.
Post reply on HN