81–90 of 280 posts
I'm confused. Did OP realize that GPTs anwers are completely wrong and is being sarcastic? Or is formatting really more important than content?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As everyone starts to adopt AI, are we going to get to a point where the AI is eating itself. I could imagine AI failing similarly to incestuous genetic lines creating mutations.
Yep, as AI starts to get trained on AI-generated data the output may well become unstable, you can't build an infinite motion machine (or an infinite gain machine/infinite SNR amplifier) and the system may degrade to essentially white noise. Sort of a cyber-kessler syndrome basically. You really don't want AI-generated content in your AI training material, that's actually probably not generating signal for building f…
This is the very definition of clickbait. Not the Tweeter's fault, but it's a gray area when sharing Tweets on HN, since Tweets do not have a "title" per se. From the HN Guidelines: > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
Agreed, can the title be changed to something like "Google search results vs GPT3"
Here's an example on how misleading ChatGPT is: Prompt: Can you explain what happens when i enter "ping 16843009" in a linux shell? Answer: When you enter the command ping 16843009 in a Linux shell, you are instructing the ping utility to send an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) echo request to the IP address 168.43.9.0. [...] The correct answer is that it will ping 1.1.1.1 Also ChatGPT missed that fact that…
What we need is a large benchmark.
It's great, until people realize GPT-3 will generate answers that are demonstrably wrong. (And to make matters worse, can't show/link the source of the incorrect information!)
I just tried Googling "when did the moon explode?" to see if it still gave authoritative answers to bogus questions: > About an hour after sunset on June 18, 1178, the Moon exploded. "when did lincoln shoot booth" > April 14, 1865 Mostly they seem to catch and stop this now, but there was a fun brief period where it was popping up the fact-box for whatever seemed closest to the search terms, so "when did neil armstro…
When you search "when did the moon explode?". The full result is actually
> About an hour after sunset on June 18, 1178, the Moon exploded. That's what it looked like to five terrified, awestruck monks watching the skies over the abbey at Canterbury, in southeastern England, anyway.
Which links to an article about the story. It a well known story hence why it shows up when you search it.
When you search "when did lincoln shoot booth"
It doesnt say "Booth shot Lincoln in 1865". It literally gives you a summary of the "Assassination of Abraham Lincoln" with a link the Wikipedia.
Again to a human this is a perfectly fine result because if you are search "When did Lincoln shoot Booth" and this shows up you will realize oh im an idiot Linclon was actually shot by Booth lol.
These are both better results then if GPT would suggest the same with no proof. Google gives you a source for their result.
https://twitter.com/goodside/status/1598129631609380864
> explain the worst-case time complexity of the bubble sort algorithm, with Python code examples, in the style of a fast-talkin' wise guy from a 1940's gangster movie
It's great, until people realize GPT-3 will generate answers that are demonstrably wrong. (And to make matters worse, can't show/link the source of the incorrect information!)
I'm not sure if it's GPT-3 but the "conversation" the two philosophers have are littered with wrong information, such as attributing ideas to the wrong people; ie it wouldn't be too far fetched if they suggested that Marx was a film director.
The trouble with that incorrect information - and The Infinite Conversation is an extreme example of this because of the distinctive voices - is that it is presented with such authority that it isn't very hard at all to perceive it as perfectly credible; Zizek sitting there and telling me that Marx was the greatest romcom director of all time, without even a slight hint of sarcasm could easily gaslight me into believing it.
Now, this example here isn't two robot philosophers having coffee, but throw in a convincing looking chart or two and... well I mean it works well enough when the communicator is human, telling us that climate change isn't real.