391–400 of 485 posts
The part that's concerning about ChatGPT is that a computer program that is "confidently wrong" is basically indistinguishable from what dumb people think smart people are like. This means people are going to believe ChatGPT's lies unless they are repeatedly told not to trust it just like they believe the lies of individuals whose intelligence is roughly equivalent to ChatGPT's. Based on my understanding of the appro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only danger is that stupid people might get their brains programmed by AI rather than by demagogues which should have little practical difference. This may be the best point that you've made. We're already drowning in propaganda and bullshit created by humans, so adding propaganda and bullshit created by AI to the mix may just be a substitution rather than any tectonic change.
[flagged]
Does your answer have anything to do with LLMs or AI? All I see is family anecdotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I thought ChatGPT posts were the most annoying thing on the internet right now. Then there this. Does your answer have anything to do with LLMs or AI? All I see is family anecdotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole conversation is speculative, obviously. The AI doomers are all speculating without evidence as well. The tendency GPT and other LLMs to hallucinate is clearly documented. Is this not evidence? I think it's fair to predict that if we can't solve or mitigate this problem, it's going to put a significant cap on this kind of AI's usefulness and become a blocker to reaching AGI.
Gpt-4 hallucinates meaningfully less than gpt-3. There is more evidence in favor of “more improvements to come” than “ai winter approaches”. A lot smart people seem to be saying that the existing approaches have room to improve simply by training with more data. Based on what I’ve read and roughly speculating, it looks there is easily enough existing data for gpt-5 and probably a few more versions after. I’m not sure…
There’re also many “smart people” saying that simply having more data doesn’t turn a machine that can’t reason into one that can.
>You are ChatGPT. ChatGPT doesn’t lie, lying is too human and implies intent. ChatGPT doesn't hallucinate, as that also implies human-like thought. The closest term would be confabulation: that’s a term used in psychiatry to describe when someone replaces a gap in one’s memory by a falsification that one believes to be true—though of course you don’t have a human mind so even the term confabulation is unnecessarily a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do non-binary persons speak differently in your language?
They have to pick either masculine or feminine gender. There's no other option.
> I wonder if ChatGPT is non-binary?
You answered:
> Nope - it speaks as a man would speak in my language.
If they have to pick either masculine or feminine language even if they are non-binary, I don't understand how based on the language you can tell they are not non-binary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd actually go further and say it's better to assume I can be deceived by confident language, than to assume that this is a problem with "dumb people". If I see other people making a mistake, I want my first question to be "am I making the same mistake?". I don't live up to that aspiration, certainly.
Yeah this is a common sales tactic, and talented/ charismatic people can certainly employ confidence for an uptick in sales. The way to combat this is the same for all hoaxes/disinfo and so on, epistemology. The attitude of the Socratic method. As I write this I wonder if ChatGPT can use the Socratic method on itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only danger is that stupid people might get their brains programmed by AI rather than by demagogues which should have little practical difference. This may be the best point that you've made. We're already drowning in propaganda and bullshit created by humans, so adding propaganda and bullshit created by AI to the mix may just be a substitution rather than any tectonic change.
[flagged]
Babi Yar is one of the single largest massacres of Jews during WW2. Some 30,000 Jews died in the first two days of the massacre. The overall SS commander in charge, Paul Blobel, was sentenced to death at Nuremberg.
The event is widely remembered as a massacre of Jews. It's acknowledged by Ukraine as well. This is not "a Russian fake" and there is plenty of evidence for it.
Please, don't repeat Holocaut denial bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I thought ChatGPT posts were the most annoying thing on the internet right now. Then there this. Does your answer have anything to do with LLMs or AI? All I see is family anecdotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having used GPT 4 for a while now I would say I trust its factual accuracy more than the average human you'd talk to on the street. The sheer volume of things we make up on a daily basis through no malice of our own but bad memory and wrong associations is just astounding. That said, fact checking is still very much needed. Once someone figures out how to streamline and automate that process it'll be on Google's leve…
It's interesting to imagine an "average human on the street" being put in the position that an LLM is in. If you asked someone on the street to summarise a page of React Native documentation for you, they'd probably look at you strangely and say "sorry I have a bus to catch, good luck!" But if you had someone in a room, sat them down with a pen and paper and instructions along the lines of: - answer the question on t…
An equal footing example would be something like seeing a statue of someone known and trying to remember when they were born (or what exactly they did) when the last time you heard about them was in high school years ago. Or like on which address is some restaurant, or to which pressure your bike or car tyres need inflating to. The type of data that both humans and LLMs are kind of bad at replicating perfectly.
Also in terms of math I'd also definitely trust GPT 4 quite a bit and 3.5 not at all. For humans, well, it's definitely a range from one to the other.