Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing ChatGPT Gov

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#61

Post by nzach »

ourguile wrote: post #55
nzach wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand why people bash so hard on LLMs. In some cases it is a spectacularly bad tool, I get that. But it is only a tool. Imagine if you have a judge giving out sentences based on astrology books. I don't think anyone would argue the problem would be resolved by banning astrology books from our libraries.

I believe the main issue in regard to LLMs is that there is a real chance of the prevalence and ease of use of LLMs to erode critical thinking skills. Regardless of boilerplate warnings to "check the validity of answers" coming from the LLM, plenty of people in society outside of this tech savvy audience wouldn't even know where to begin. There was a recent Big Think article on this: https://bigthink.com/thinking/art…

I don't really believe that LLMs will make us dumber. It only changes what we decide to put our attention. It's the same that happened with Google, it changed our relationship with information. Even though it has several shortcomings the ability of just look things up instead of having to hold everything in our heads was a net positive for society.

And I suspect the same will happen for LLMs, in the end we will just start thinking in "another level of abstraction". We are still in the early days and still have a lot to learn about how to properly use this new toll but I think LLMs are a positive change for society.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#62

Post by mv4 »

I checked the examples they listed under "How government agencies use ChatGPT today". With the exception of the [very nebulous] research use case, it appears that all of these can be done using open-source models hosted locally:

1. basic coding and "supporting AI education efforts" (really?) 2. more accurate translation services for multilingual communities 3. analyzing project requirements

I have a lot of questions.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#63

Post by nzach »

aeturnum wrote: post #41
nzach wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand why people bash so hard on LLMs. In some cases it is a spectacularly bad tool, I get that. But it is only a tool. Imagine if you have a judge giving out sentences based on astrology books. I don't think anyone would argue the problem would be resolved by banning astrology books from our libraries.

Sure, that judge is a problem, but I think your metaphor is a bit mal-formed. In your example you should probably drop the judge, but you should also make a rule saying astrology books aren't a legitimate source of sentence guidance. That's what people are annoyed about re:LLMs. People keep insisting they are a legit source in different situations. You wouldn't ban them overall, but you do want some kind of society-l…

>you should also make a rule saying astrology books aren't a legitimate source of sentence guidance

My example was absurd on purpose, I didn't want to bring an example where people could respond with "well, actually..."

But in the real world that is rarely the case, imagine substituting "astrology book" for "Bible/Quran/..." Would that be considered a legitimate source of sentence guidance? I'm sure people would spend years arguing about that...

As a society we need to understand that LLM hallucination is no different than a bloom filter giving you a false-positive.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#64

Post by aeturnum »

nzach wrote: post #63
aeturnum wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that judge is a problem, but I think your metaphor is a bit mal-formed. In your example you should probably drop the judge, but you should also make a rule saying astrology books aren't a legitimate source of sentence guidance. That's what people are annoyed about re:LLMs. People keep insisting they are a legit source in different situations. You wouldn't ban them overall, but you do want some kind of society-l…

>you should also make a rule saying astrology books aren't a legitimate source of sentence guidance My example was absurd on purpose, I didn't want to bring an example where people could respond with "well, actually..." But in the real world that is rarely the case, imagine substituting "astrology book" for "Bible/Quran/..." Would that be considered a legitimate source of sentence guidance? I'm sure people would spen…

Then I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that the problem is unsolvable and people should just accept that?

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#65

Post by nzach »

aeturnum wrote: post #64
nzach wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you should also make a rule saying astrology books aren't a legitimate source of sentence guidance My example was absurd on purpose, I didn't want to bring an example where people could respond with "well, actually..." But in the real world that is rarely the case, imagine substituting "astrology book" for "Bible/Quran/..." Would that be considered a legitimate source of sentence guidance? I'm sure people would spen…

Then I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that the problem is unsolvable and people should just accept that?

My point is that LMM is a tool, and we should never attribute any sort of blame to our tools. The blame should always be with the humans.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#66

Post by butlike »

soupfordummies wrote: post #57
lostmsu wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this and I still am uncertain about what it means. I believe ChatGPT also failed to understand this, it differs from my interpretation: GGP is worried that while people access "aligned" models military deployment don't have the guardrails.

This is some much needed comic relief. It’s as if buddy just came in the topic and casually dropped a rhetorical puzzle that even AI and the bright minds on HN can’t figure out. Guess he’s down at the chow truck now.

We're all down at the chow truck now; metaphorically-speaking.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#67

Post by butlike »

MangoCoffee wrote: post #44
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #22

Oh wow, look, more shit the general public could not care less about. This sounds like a company in free fall, which isn't terribly surprising, given who is at the helm.

https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/?whats-new.sort-by=item.a... Is Amazon in free fall?

Kinda. AWS could subsist, but Amazon itself has unironically become the shady red light-district bazaar we were all afraid of.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#68

Post by TiredOfLife »

nzach wrote: post #19
heyflyguy wrote: post #5

Stuff like this troubles me. I am in defense tech working with LLMs and I am here to tell you the guards and fences are down at the chow truck while commoners are using LLMs.

I don't really understand why people bash so hard on LLMs. In some cases it is a spectacularly bad tool, I get that. But it is only a tool. Imagine if you have a judge giving out sentences based on astrology books. I don't think anyone would argue the problem would be resolved by banning astrology books from our libraries.

From Douglas Adams (of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" fame)

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#69

Post by [deleted] »

nzach wrote: post #65
aeturnum wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that the problem is unsolvable and people should just accept that?

My point is that LMM is a tool, and we should never attribute any sort of blame to our tools. The blame should always be with the humans.

[deleted]

Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov

#70

Post by Retric »

nzach wrote: post #65
aeturnum wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that the problem is unsolvable and people should just accept that?

My point is that LMM is a tool, and we should never attribute any sort of blame to our tools. The blame should always be with the humans.

It’s fine to blame a car’s heater when the design is so poor it can’t keep the cabin warm when it’s only 0C outside.

Thus being a spectacularly bad tool is itself a cause to assign blame.

Post reply on HN