3 ms·
If GPT could produce something intellectually interesting, wouldn't that pass the Turing test? Seems like all GPT can produce is an infinite supply of shaggy d
by NortySpock 6y ago
If GPT could produce something intellectually interesting, wouldn't that pass the Turing test?
Seems like all GPT can produce is an infinite supply of shaggy dog stories. I don't know if I'd call that intellectual humiliation, just a lack of a point or punchline.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story)
- keenmaster 6y agoTo rephrase: it will humiliate people who consume non-intellectually interesting material but don't really think about what they're doing. E.g. Someone whose daily reading consists of the top articles on Yahoo News. I don't think they'll continue to do so if Yahoo and its partners switch to GPT-X. So either Yahoo will source better material, or its readership will decline.
- NortySpock 6y agoIn GPT's current iteration, I agree. If GPT produces better output and is carefully mixed in with existing stories, I don't think anyone will notice. What percentage of stock price stories are generated by a bot? Off the cuff and totally guessing, I'd say 50%. Do you know the exact number? Could you tell? Would the headline service tell you? (probably not)
- keenmaster 6y agoEthos matters, especially when there's money involved and you're taking advice from someone. You'd be disturbed if that someone is a bot. Maybe you shouldn't be, because sometimes financial advisors are worse than bots, but people don't know that. As for the stories that merely describe stock movements without any real analysis, I myself would read those. I'm completely fine with that as long as there's reliable QA on the output.