5 ms·

I feel like people are expecting a computer program to produce perfect, error-free output at all times. Then, when a program is developed which presents itself

by luma 4y ago

I feel like people are expecting a computer program to produce perfect, error-free output at all times. Then, when a program is developed which presents itself like a human, we apply the same ideas that all output should be perfect. We do not apply those same rules to people, we acknowledge that people provide imperfect answers and are used to fact checking them. Maybe we just need to adjust our mental models when working with technology that works a little like a human? Forget implicit trust, verify important details, etc etc. Presume the "AI" works like a human and the workflow makes more sense.

arcturus17 4y ago
If I ask a seasoned CTO about the tech stack and architecture for my startup I don’t expect perfect information, but I do expect a trustworthy opinion.
- luma 4y ago
  Right, but how do you know you're asking a seasoned CTO? We all deal with this in real life, when working with somebody new you might not fully trust that person until you've had an opportunity to gauge their skills. Same deal here, this isn't a perfect system and it doesn't produce perfect output all of the time. So, work with the system and get a sense of how much you can trust it, just like you would with normal human interactions. OpenAI is not positioning this as a CTO-level intelligence. If you came into it with that understanding, that isn't OpenAI's fault.
FerociousTimes 4y ago
When marketers of these tools make them sound like next-level in universal intelligence surpassing even humans, and they under-deliver consistently, don't blame the audience or the public for the tool's shortcomings, but the misleading marketing campaigns instead.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Who on the entire internet has "marketed" these tools as what you're saying? I've seen some random people making bombastic claims about these models, infamously including a now fired Google engineer, but the people actually marketing them have been pretty sanguine about their features and limitations as far as I can tell. I'm reminded of that quote about Twitter: half of the outrage on the site is people imagining some person and then getting mad that they exist.
  - FerociousTimes 4y ago
    Marketers here used metaphorically not literally. People/bots hyping these tools is what I meant. I wish people here would be more attuned to the context of comments before jumping to conclusions.
    - Karunamon 4y ago
      I wish people here would choose their words more carefully. Your context was not clear at all, since random commenters on the internet are not responsible for the performance or the delivery or the marketing of these models at all, and you use the word "marketing campaign", which is only ever something that people directly connected to the product in some way are responsible for. Comments by unrelated members of the general public, very few of which have any kind of domain knowledge, are not marketing campaigns for crying out loud! On top of that, this was the most charitable possible reading of your comment. Now that you reveal you actually meant "when random people make them sound like the next level in universal intelligence…", this is both an incredibly weak point (expecting the general public to understand something deeply is usually unreasonable) and makes you sound overly credulous. Why are you taking your cues on a brand-new technology from uninformed, likely tech-illiterate randoms?
      - tome 4y ago
        Well, here's the CEO of OpenAI saying that the future [of the graph of AI performance, presumably] is "vertical". https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599111626191294464 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599111626191294464 That's not quite evidence in favour of FerociousTimes, but unless we soon see evidence of this "vertical" future, it will become such.

by luma 4y ago

arcturus17 4y ago

If I ask a seasoned CTO about the tech stack and architecture for my startup I don’t expect perfect information, but I do expect a trustworthy opinion.

luma 4y ago
Right, but how do you know you're asking a seasoned CTO? We all deal with this in real life, when working with somebody new you might not fully trust that person until you've had an opportunity to gauge their skills. Same deal here, this isn't a perfect system and it doesn't produce perfect output all of the time. So, work with the system and get a sense of how much you can trust it, just like you would with normal human interactions. OpenAI is not positioning this as a CTO-level intelligence. If you came into it with that understanding, that isn't OpenAI's fault.

FerociousTimes 4y ago

When marketers of these tools make them sound like next-level in universal intelligence surpassing even humans, and they under-deliver consistently, don't blame the audience or the public for the tool's shortcomings, but the misleading marketing campaigns instead.

Karunamon 4y ago
Who on the entire internet has "marketed" these tools as what you're saying? I've seen some random people making bombastic claims about these models, infamously including a now fired Google engineer, but the people actually marketing them have been pretty sanguine about their features and limitations as far as I can tell. I'm reminded of that quote about Twitter: half of the outrage on the site is people imagining some person and then getting mad that they exist.
- FerociousTimes 4y ago
  Marketers here used metaphorically not literally. People/bots hyping these tools is what I meant. I wish people here would be more attuned to the context of comments before jumping to conclusions.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    I wish people here would choose their words more carefully. Your context was not clear at all, since random commenters on the internet are not responsible for the performance or the delivery or the marketing of these models at all, and you use the word "marketing campaign", which is only ever something that people directly connected to the product in some way are responsible for. Comments by unrelated members of the general public, very few of which have any kind of domain knowledge, are not marketing campaigns for crying out loud! On top of that, this was the most charitable possible reading of your comment. Now that you reveal you actually meant "when random people make them sound like the next level in universal intelligence…", this is both an incredibly weak point (expecting the general public to understand something deeply is usually unreasonable) and makes you sound overly credulous. Why are you taking your cues on a brand-new technology from uninformed, likely tech-illiterate randoms?
    - tome 4y ago
      Well, here's the CEO of OpenAI saying that the future [of the graph of AI performance, presumably] is "vertical". https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599111626191294464 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599111626191294464 That's not quite evidence in favour of FerociousTimes, but unless we soon see evidence of this "vertical" future, it will become such.