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!)
To be fair so did my lecturers at university...
Comparing Google and ChatGPT
91–100 of 280 posts
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#92The answer about Typescript generics is totally wrong. I'm sure there's other errors but I didn't read further.
The brainfuck is laughably incorrect too. It's mostly no-ops.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus, who is going to produce the corpus you feed the magic chat engine?
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.
Are we not already there?
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like we could bang in the idea of PageRank in GPT-3 to marginally improve that situation?
yeah good luck with that, it's going to be a very tall order to integrate PageRank with neural networks. It's not just something you can do in a year or two.
Why? As a starting point you can importance-weight training samples with the PageRank output.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#95It'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 ran across a site a while back which just seems to be common questions fed to GPT-3; the answers all make perfect grammatical sense, but they're also hilariously wrong. A bunch of middle school kids are probably going to get an F on their papers and simultaneously learn something about the importance of verifying information found on the internet. https://knologist.com/has-any-rover-landed-on-venus/ "The average ca…
This is going to confuse so many people.
I hope traditional cross-checking methods will continue to work.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, i talked to ChatGPT and it gave me a lot of wrong information in an authorative tone. I consider it dangerous as-is.
Turns out humans do this all the time and they actually have real power.
So if you're suggestion is that it's ok if computers are as unreliable as humans, what's the point of computers, then?
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#97I'm actually really interested in an AI that gives the wrong answers. It is a great way to generate filler when building out flashcards with the correct answer that you find when studying something. Is there a good open source (docker image) available ChatGPT3 equivalent that I can use for that, does anyone know?
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#98Earlier 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…
Am I alone in not being sure if the commenter here fed the parent into GPT as a prompt to generate output or actually wrote this?
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#99It'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!)
Exactly, i talked to ChatGPT and it gave me a lot of wrong information in an authorative tone. I consider it dangerous as-is.
No post body was provided.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turns out humans do this all the time and they actually have real power.
So if you're suggestion is that it's ok if computers are as unreliable as humans, what's the point of computers, then?
The point is that they get better and they don't need to be perfect.