31 ms·

A machine that we can ask any question and get an answer, aghast! Fun to realize what was top level science fiction at the time is now our mundane daily life

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
42.
- metafunctor 6y ago
  Oh, how many times must a man walk down?
  - vbmark 6y ago
    Roads, not time.
    - metafunctor 6y ago
      Oops, correct!
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Only superficially. The most important aspect in the early sci-fi visions of computers was that you could trust the answer the computer gives you. Futuristic sci-fi computers were, and are, DWIM[0] - they understand what you're asking for, and give back as accurate and relevant answer as possible. This is in stark contrast to real-world search engines and voice assistants of today: sure, they can tell you a lot of things, but half the time they can't parse your query correctly, and the results depend less on their accuracy, and more on who paid more to get their stuff in front of people (relevant or not). Second-guessing and sanity-checking answers are a standard part of our interactions with query-based interfaces. So we have a lot to go to match even cheesy robots from pulp comic books. But we sure as hell nailed the glitter. -- [0] - Do What I Mean.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  In the future, being multilingual will be useful not so much for communicating with other humans, but for getting different answers from voice assistants. Hey Google, who owns Hans Island? Hej Google, hvem ejer Hans Ø?
- myself248 6y ago
  "On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage
  - mechagodzilla 6y ago
    In their defense, that's a great way to filter out snake oil salesmen that would happily take your money and promise you a machine that will give you the right answer no matter what.
JdeBP 6y ago
"Hey Google! How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?" See how good an answer you get.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  A month ago, I asked GPT-3 this question. I was attempting to write a crossover fanfiction version of Asimov's The Last Question in AI Dungeon. Unfortunately, GPT-3 didn't recognize this reference - after all, a short story is too weightless. You need a well-established collection of fictions and fanfictions in the same universe to gain any recognition by GPT-3. My input was, roughly: > Human: "Is it possible to defy entropy?" > Alien: "We've asked this question to Microvac, Galactic AC, Universal AC, Cosmic AC, and AC, the most powerful supercomputer in our world. However, the only answer we got was 'THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER'." And the only output I could get was: > Human: "Why couldn't the computer answer the question?" > Alien: "It's like asking a computer 'how do you pet a cat', which is meaningless to it." GPT-3 didn't realize it was an Asimov reference, instead, GPT-3 decided to use the common trope in Sci-Fi that logical computers cannot understand human experience, which is out of context and clearly doesn't apply here. But on second thought, I invoked this trope in an indirect way. Perhaps GPT-3 actually knew it - I should try to replicate the same context as the original story, and see how it goes.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago

42.

metafunctor 6y ago
Oh, how many times must a man walk down?
- vbmark 6y ago
  Roads, not time.
  - metafunctor 6y ago
    Oops, correct!

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Only superficially. The most important aspect in the early sci-fi visions of computers was that you could trust the answer the computer gives you. Futuristic sci-fi computers were, and are, DWIM[0] - they understand what you're asking for, and give back as accurate and relevant answer as possible. This is in stark contrast to real-world search engines and voice assistants of today: sure, they can tell you a lot of things, but half the time they can't parse your query correctly, and the results depend less on their accuracy, and more on who paid more to get their stuff in front of people (relevant or not). Second-guessing and sanity-checking answers are a standard part of our interactions with query-based interfaces. So we have a lot to go to match even cheesy robots from pulp comic books. But we sure as hell nailed the glitter. -- [0] - Do What I Mean.

082349872349872 6y ago
In the future, being multilingual will be useful not so much for communicating with other humans, but for getting different answers from voice assistants. Hey Google, who owns Hans Island? Hej Google, hvem ejer Hans Ø?
myself248 6y ago
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage
- mechagodzilla 6y ago
  In their defense, that's a great way to filter out snake oil salesmen that would happily take your money and promise you a machine that will give you the right answer no matter what.

JdeBP 6y ago

"Hey Google! How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?" See how good an answer you get.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
A month ago, I asked GPT-3 this question. I was attempting to write a crossover fanfiction version of Asimov's The Last Question in AI Dungeon. Unfortunately, GPT-3 didn't recognize this reference - after all, a short story is too weightless. You need a well-established collection of fictions and fanfictions in the same universe to gain any recognition by GPT-3. My input was, roughly: > Human: "Is it possible to defy entropy?" > Alien: "We've asked this question to Microvac, Galactic AC, Universal AC, Cosmic AC, and AC, the most powerful supercomputer in our world. However, the only answer we got was 'THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER'." And the only output I could get was: > Human: "Why couldn't the computer answer the question?" > Alien: "It's like asking a computer 'how do you pet a cat', which is meaningless to it." GPT-3 didn't realize it was an Asimov reference, instead, GPT-3 decided to use the common trope in Sci-Fi that logical computers cannot understand human experience, which is out of context and clearly doesn't apply here. But on second thought, I invoked this trope in an indirect way. Perhaps GPT-3 actually knew it - I should try to replicate the same context as the original story, and see how it goes.