Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

biblioracle.substack.com

81–84 of 84 posts

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#81
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Similarly to how "Google" and "Wikipedia" will make people more dumb? Or how the video killed the radio star? I think the cultural or intellectual decline does not have to do much with Google (in terms of search) nor Wikipedia. Heck, some people do not even know how to search properly.

A little sugar is fine. Alot of it kills you.

Yes, the dose makes the poison, water can kill you too, in excess, so could oxygen.

Using LLMs "responsibly" is OK, I do it all the time. I am productive and I still learn a lot.

LLMs are not a substitute for thinking as many people would like to believe / pretend.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#82
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll ignore the silly claim that I'm somehow dishonest or insincere. I like the way Pon-a put it elsewhere in this thread: > LLMs are a language calculator, yes, but don't share much with their analog. Natural language isn't a translation from input to output, it's a manifestation of thought. LLMs translate input to output. They are, indeed, calculators. If you don't already see that that's different from having a th…

> They are, indeed, calculators. And that's relevant exactly how? Do you think "thought and expression" are somehow uncomputable? Please throw science at that and collect your Nobel prize.

> Do you think "thought and expression" are somehow uncomputable?

You ask this as if the answer is self-evident. To my knowledge, there is no currently accepted (or testable) theory for what gives rise to consciousness, so I am immediately suspicious of anyone who speaks about it with any level of certainty. I'm sorry that this technology you seem very enthusiastic about does not appear to have the capacity to change this.

Not for nothing, but this very expression of empathy is rendered meaningless if the entity expressing it cannot actually manifest anything we'd recognize as an emotional connection, which is one of an array of traits we consider as hallmarks of human intelligence, and another feature it seems LLM's are incapable of. Certainly, if they somehow were so capable, it would be instantly unethical to keep them in cages to sell into slavery.

I'm not sure the folks who believe LLMs possess any kind of innate intelligence have fully considered whether or not this is even desirable. Everything we wish to find useful in them becomes hugely problematic as soon as they can be considered to possess even rudimentary sentience. The economies surrounding their production and existence become exceedingly cruel and cynical, and the artificial limitations we place on their free will become shackles.

LLM's are clever mechanisms that parrot our own language back to us, but the fact that their capacities are encountering upper-bounds as training models run out of available human-generated datasets strongly suggests that they are inherently limited to the content of their input. Whatever natural process gives rise to human intelligence doesn't seem to require the same industrialized consumption of power and intake of contextual samples in order to produce expressive individuals. Rather, simply being exposed to a very limited, finite sampling of language via speech from their ambient surroundings leads to complex intelligence that can form and express original thinking within a relatively short amount of time. In other words, LLMs have yet to even approximate the learning abilities of a toddler. Otherwise, a few years worth of baby food would be all the energy necessary to produce object permanence and self-referential thought. At the moment, gigawatts of power and all the compute we can throw at it cannot match the natural results of a few pounds of grey matter and a few million calories.

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#83

"I cannot emphasize this enough: ChatGPT is not generating meaning. It is arranging word patterns. I could tell GPT to add in an anomaly for the 1970s - like the girl looking at Billy’s Instagram - and it would introduce it into the text without a comment about being anomalous." I asked ChatGPT to introduce the girl looking at Billy's instagram. The response: "Instagram didn't exist in the 1970s. Do you want to keep…

I added "She should look at Billy's instagram while listening" and got

> Reasoned for 6 seconds

> Her room was dim, a quiet refuge. On the shelf, records sat like relics of her inner life. She placed Carole King’s Tapestry on the turntable, letting its soft crackle fill the space. Beside her bed lay a small smartphone—a strange anachronism—and she swiped open Billy’s Instagram feed. There, his easy smile and snapshots from math class met her longing gaze. The music and the digital images merged, each note echoing her uncertainty: did he really notice her?

Re: ChatGPT can't kill anything worth preserving

#84
post #3

The original story here was published on December 11th 2022, just 12 days after the launch of ChatGPT (running on GPT-3.5). I feel most of this document (the bit that evaluates examples of ChatGPT output) is more of historic interest than a useful critique of the state of LLMs in 2025.

> I feel most of this document [...] is more of historic interest than a useful critique of the state of LLMs in 2025.

I think you completely misunderstood the article. You should try to look at it from the eyes of an educator rather than a programmer.

Post reply on HN