chatgpt outputting credible bs is EXCELLENT to the extent that it will push intelligent people into critical reading of everything around them - "[citation needed]" et al.
lazy people will just suck it up, "experts / AI said so!"
We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
411–420 of 425 posts
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd see hallucination in the citations too. Ultimately, you can't get away from having to manually verify everything that an LLM outputs.
I run the cheaper self hostable OpenAI alternative https://text-generator.io I've been working on automating this manual verification of everything, with a few components we already have like a search engine and an edit API we can both detect and correct most of these errors to at least be reflective of what a reliable source says like Wikipedia, still a lot of reasoning, logic and math issues will remain, but there'…
| what a reliable source says like Wikipedia
oh dear me
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
No worries, you were right on your assumption, I am a programmer, like you seem to be as well. > like a language model (LM) is one kind of program, whereas the set of all program contains infinitely many programs that are not LLMs I don’t know if it’s been formally verified, but it’s pretty safe to bet that ChatGPT is Turing Complete. If so, than your statement is false. ChatGPT can emulate every computable problem.
>> No worries, you were right on your assumption, I am a programmer, like you seem to be as well. Of course :) >> I don’t know if it’s been formally verified, but it’s pretty safe to bet that ChatGPT is Turing Complete. If so, than your statement is false. ChatGPT can emulate every computable problem. I think that's unlikely. For Universal Turing Machine expressivity, a system needs to have something to function as a…
> infinite Turing tape
That's the ideal machine Turing describes, but it's a very narrow definition we don't really use. If that were the case, nothing would ever be Turing-complete, not even the computer we are writing this on. If we can consider a cellular automaton and even the single x86's MOV instruction Turing-complete, I'm pretty sure ChatGPT will qualify.
>it doesn't even have a memory, as such (it forgets everything you tell it…
It really doesn't. Have you tried it? You can bring back context from several prompts before. One of the remarkable things about it, in fact.
>Btw, I think one could argue that a Transformer architecture is Turing-complete
Bingo. And you can probably tweak your prompt to steer it. The things people at Reddit have been able to persuade ChatGTP to do against its directives is tantalizing.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
But but but, there's money to be made!
Hah! I am honestly not even sure about that. There's clearly investment money to be raised. But sustained ways to generate value in the world? That's not as clear to me. I wonder if this more in the category of Groupon, which everybody thought was worldchanging for about 20 minutes. Or Shazam, which was an absolutely fucking mindblowing technology at first, and then it quickly became banal. Or perhaps the closest ana…
The key thing is that most people are obsessed with get rich quick, as long as you're first and you're fast you can make your money, damn the consequences.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think for all of blogging we have concluded that the words in your blog post were in fact written by you. If "we" concluded that it was a little naive since ghostwriting predates the blog.
I have to give you that. That is a good point. I definitely am or was naive enough to think personal blogs were personally written. Man, now I’m questioning how ethical ghostwriting is. Not sure that was your intention but that is thought provoking.
Well, I think it is more challenging than that. Even if the author writes the piece himself, most professional writing is subject to editing, which can substantially change the finished product. The one thing we can be reasonably, if not entirely, certain of is that the piece is one the author is comfortable endorsing as his own.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
What counts as “plagiarism” depends on the context. It is (in most cases) unethical to present the work of another human being as your own, but what about an AI? In an educational setting, it would be unethical to turn in an AI’s work as your own. But if a professional programmer uses GitHub Copilot, are they obliged to acknowledge Copilot’s contribution? If I have a personal blog, and ChatGPT helps me write a post,…
I think the bigger picture to me is something like are you being disingenuous rather than are you technically plagiarizing. Thought experiment: if I tell people I’m great at multiplication and I don’t tell them I have an earpiece / mic with someone using a calculator on the other end. If I convince these people I have a great mind and they respect my math skills, have I not fooled them? As for the copilot argument, I…
I don’t think the purpose of most writing is convincing people you’re a great writer.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly find animals are generally very smart. Maybe because they are living things, evolved and born to be survived.
Thank you, I dislike this lazy connection between animals and stupidity. It feels like a verbal tick of some sort thrown around when reaching for an example
But that's exactly my point. Animals are smart. People are underestimating truly how far we have to go to match the intelligence of even the "least intelligent" animals.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know what a clean house looks like, but I'd still love a machine to clean my house. CatGPT's purpose is not to understand complex ideas, it is to do the tedious task of joining disparate such ideas together in an intelligible way. Much faster to have it do 95% of the work and you only need to modify the 5% that's bad, then for you to do 100% yourself.
That’s a bad analogy. It would actually rather be like: I know what a clean house looks like, but I’d still love a machine to describe it to me. However, I think you are somewhat on the right track as “AI” shows us which types of work can be removed all together. I think, if “AI” can do it, it’s not necessary work to begin with. Eg. instead of “AI” doing formal correspondence for us, we could then just have an interf…
I don't think you understand how analogies work.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to give you that. That is a good point. I definitely am or was naive enough to think personal blogs were personally written. Man, now I’m questioning how ethical ghostwriting is. Not sure that was your intention but that is thought provoking.
Well, I think it is more challenging than that. Even if the author writes the piece himself, most professional writing is subject to editing, which can substantially change the finished product. The one thing we can be reasonably, if not entirely, certain of is that the piece is one the author is comfortable endorsing as his own.
You can argue plagiarist are comfortable endorsing as their own but that seems beside the point.
Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the bigger picture to me is something like are you being disingenuous rather than are you technically plagiarizing. Thought experiment: if I tell people I’m great at multiplication and I don’t tell them I have an earpiece / mic with someone using a calculator on the other end. If I convince these people I have a great mind and they respect my math skills, have I not fooled them? As for the copilot argument, I…
I don’t think the purpose of most writing is convincing people you’re a great writer.
Me either. It’s to convince you’re a great intellect. That or to record a historical archive.