[flagged]
Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
311–320 of 451 posts
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#312Chatbot advertising has to be one of the most powerful forms of marketing yet. People are basically all the way through the sales pipeline when they land on your page.
Right down to the lying salespeople!
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is “requiring perfection”, but hallucination is a major issue and is in the opposite direction of the “goal” of AGI. If “don’t hallucinate” is too much to ask then ethics flew out the window long ago.
> No one is “requiring perfection” > If “don’t hallucinate” is too much to ask then ethics flew out the window long ago. Those sentences aren't compatible. > but hallucination is a major issue Again, every official public AI interface has warnings/disclaimers for this issue. It's well known. It's not some secret. Every AI researcher is directly or indirectly working on this. > is in the opposite direction of the “goa…
> Those sentences aren't compatible.
My web browser isn't perfect, but it does not hallucinate inexistent webpages. It sometimes crashes, it sometimes renders wrong, it has bugs and errors. It does not invent plausible-looking information.
There really is a lot middle gound between perfect and "accept anything we give you, no matter how huge the problems".
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#314I find it amusing that it's easier to ship a new feature than to get OpenAI to patch ChatGPT to stop pretending that feature exists (not sure how they would even do that, beyond blocking all mentions of SoundSlice entirely.)
Companies pay good money to panels of potential customers to hear their needs and wants. This is free market research!
But they wouldn't have wanted this particular thing if the AI hadn't told them to.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you mind identifying a few of the "smuggled presumptions"?
Well, I had those conversations a long time ago, but we can describe some general patterns. We can smuggle in presumptions through the use of attributive adjectives. In the above comment (which you might have noticed I wrote in E-Prime) I mentioned smuggling in "covert presumptions" of "essential attributes". If I had instead written that in assembly language as follows: I smuggled in presumptions of attributes. The…
Sir, I take issue at your implication that my hand grenade is ugly!
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#316I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works. Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does…
> These are ways to harness what neural networks are best at: not providing accurate information but making shit up that is highly plausible, "hallucination". Creativity, not logic.
This is also similar to which areas TD-Gammon excelled at in Backgammon.
Which is all pretty amusing, if you compare it to how people usually tended to characterise computers and AI, especially in fiction.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#317I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works. Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does…
> Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. IMO this has always been the killer use case for AI—from Google Maps to Grammarly. I discovered Grammarly at the very last phase of writing my book. I accepted maybe 1/3 of its suggestions, which is pretty damn good considering my book had already been edited by me dozens of times AND professionally copy-edited. But if I'd have accepted all of Gram…
> The problem is executives want to completely remove humans from the loop, which almost universally leads to disastrous results.
That's how you get economics of scale.
Google couldn't have a human in the loop to review every page of search results before handing them out in response to queries.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#318I think folks have taken the wrong lesson from this. It’s not that they added a new feature because there was demand. They added a new feature because technology hallucinated a feature that didn’t exist. The savior of tech, generative AI, was telling folks a feature existed that didn’t exist. That’s what the headline is, and in a sane world the folks that run ChatGPT would be falling over themselves to be sure it did…
There was demand for the problem. ChatGPT created demand for this solution.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#319This is called product-channel fit. It's great the writer recognized how to capture the demand from a new acquisition channel.
In this case the channel tells you exactly what to build and isn't lying to you (modulo: will these become paying customers?)
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#320Loved this article. If you can adapt to the market (even if the AI did that) you can provide your users a greater experience.