You're now officially working for the machine, congrats.
Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
321–330 of 451 posts
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Only some things scale like that. Google's insistence to use the same model everywhere has gained them a deserved reputation as having atrocious support.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in a sane world the folks that run ChatGPT would be falling over themselves to be sure it didn’t happen again This would be a world without generative AI available to the public, at the moment. Requiring perfection would either mean guardrails that would make it useless for most cases, or no LLM access until AGI exists, which are both completely irrational, since many people are finding practical value in its curre…
> Requiring perfection would either mean guardrails that would make it useless for most cases, or no LLM access until AGI exists What?? What does AGI have to do with this? (If this was some kind of hyperbolic joke, sorry, i didn't get it.) But, more importantly, the GP only said that in a sane world, the ChatGPT creators should be the ones trying to fix this mistake on ChatGPT. After all, it's obviously a mistake on…
> What does AGI have to do with this?
Their requirement is no hallucinations [1], also stated as "be sure it didn't happen again" in the original comment. If you define a hallucination as something that wasn't in the training data, directly or indirectly (indirectly being something like an "obvious" abstract concept), then you've placed a profound constraint on the system, requiring determinism. That requirement fundamentally, by the non-deterministic statistics that these run on, means you cannot use an LLM, as they exist today. They're not "truth" machines - use a database instead.
Saying "I don't know", with determinism is only slightly different than saying "I know" with determinism, since it requires being fully aware of what you do know, not at a fact level, but at a conceptual/abstract level. Once you have a system that fully reasons about concepts, is self aware of its own knowledge, and can find the fundamental "truth" to answer a question with determinism, you have something indistinguishable from AGI.
Of course, there's a terrible hell that lives between those two, in the form of: "Error: Question outside of known questions." I think a better alternative to this hell would be a breakthrough that allowed "confidence" to be quantified. So, accept that hallucinations will exist, but present uncertainty to the user.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#324Is this the first AI hallucinated desire path?
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone not familiar with these libraries, image_get or image_read seems much clearer to me than imread. I'm wondering if the convention is worse than your instinct in this case. Maybe these AI tools will push us towards conventions that aren't always the best design.
image_get is clearer—unless you've used Matlab, Octave, matplotlib, SciPy, OpenCV, scikit-learn, or other things that have copied Matlab's interface. In that case, using the established name is clearer. (Unless, on the gripping hand, your image_get function is subtly different from Matlab's imread, for example by not returning an array, in which case a different name might be better.)
What do libjpeg and family use?
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#326I think this is the best way to build features. Build something that people want! If people didn't want it ChatGPT won't recommend it. You got a free ride on the back of a multibillion dollar monster - i can't see what's wrong about that.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#327What made ChatGPT think that this feature is supported? And a follow up question - is that the direction SEO is going to take?
Nothing. A LLM doesn't think, it just gives probability to words
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#328Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists is essentially design by committee—except this committee is neither your users nor shareholders.
On the other hand, adding a feature because you believe it is a feature your product should have, a feature that fits your vision and strategy, is a pretty sound approach that works regardless of what made you think of that feature in the first place.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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".
Different tech, different failure modes.
> it sometimes renders wrong
Is close to equivalent.
Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, that's a whataboutism, and doesn't detract from the fact that creative does not exist in the AI sphere. Pointing out that your working definition excludes reality isn't whataboutism, it's pointing out an isolated demand for rigor. If you cannot clearly articulate how human creativity (the only other type of creativity that exists) is not impugned by the definition you're using as evidence that creativity "doe…
I'll play with your tact in this argument, although I certain do not agree it is accurate. You're asserting that creativity is a meld of past experience, both personal and the creative output of others. Yet this really doesn't jive, as an LLM does not "experience" anything. I would argue that raw knowledge is not "experience" at all. We might compare this to the university graduate, head full of books and data jammed…
Experiences are not materially different from knowledge once they are both encoded as memories. They're both just encoded in neurons as weights in their network of connections. But let's assume there is some ineffable difference between firsthand and secondhand experience, which fundamentally distinguishes the two in the brain in the present.
The core question here, then, is why you are so certain that "creativity" requires "experience" beyond knowledge, and why knowledge is insufficient? What insight do you have into the human mind that top neuroscientists lack that grants you this gnosticism on how creativity definitely does and does not work?
Because, if you'll permit me to be crude, some of the best smut I've read has been by people I'm certain have never experienced the act. Their writing has been based solely on the writings of others. And yet, knowledge alone is more than enough for them to produce evocative creative works.
And, to really hammer in a point (please forgive the insulting tone):
>It's all math, top to bottom, all probability, taking all the raw info it has an just spewing what fits next best.
You are just biology, top to bottom, just electrical signals, taking all the raw info your nerves get, matching patterns and just spewing what fits next best.
Calling LLMs "just math" -- that's not creative, it's part of your input that you're predicting fits the likely next argument.
You didn't "reason, consider, or ponder" whether I would find that argument convincing or be able to immediately dismiss it because it holds no weight.
You're simply being a stochastic parrot, repeating the phrases you've heard.
...Etcetera. Again, apologies for the insult. But the point I am continually trying to make is that all of the arguments everyone tries to make about it not reasoning, not thinking, not having creativity -- they all are things that can and do apply to almost every human person, even intelligent and articulate ones like you or I.
When it comes down to it, your fundamental argument is that you do not believe that a machine can possibly have the exceptional qualities of the human mind, for some ineffable reason. It's all reasoning backwards from there. Human creativity must require human-like experience, the ability to grow, and a growing context cannot possibly suffice, because you've already decided on your conclusion.
(Because, perhaps, it would be too unsettling to admit that the alien facsimile of intelligence that we've created might have actual intelligence -- so you refuse that possibility)