7 ms·

ChatGPT Should Not Exist

18 points by forrestbrazeal 4y ago

nikanj 4y ago
This could’ve been written by ChatGPT
- bl0rg 4y ago
  Probably would have been better tho.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  and this could have been written by ctrl-v.
bawolff 4y ago
Oh no, someone worked on something that didn't literally save the world. The horrors.
drxzcl 4y ago
That guy sure seems to have an axe to grind with materialism and existentialism. Human life is not valuable because we can do things that computers can't, or that computers shouldn't. It's valuable because we can make it valuable. We can make our lives count.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lostmsu 4y ago
  This is sort of self-contradictory: if computers can do anything you can do, how exactly you can make your life count?
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Other humans can do anything you can do. If you can make your life count under those conditions, why would a computer change anything.
    - lostmsu 4y ago
      > Other humans can do anything you can do. No they really can't.
      - bawolff 4y ago
        What's something that only you can uniquely do that no other person in the world can, and is also under threat by AI?
        lostmsu 4y ago
        Eventually, somebody should be able to generate any ideas that I will come up with. But at this point I have descent chances to generate something genuinely unique for the first time. That potential for head start is under threat by a superhuman AI.
rebelos 4y ago
Sounds like this guy is only just realizing that technological progress invariably ends in complete obsolescence. What comes next is as yet unclear but also inevitable.
pluijzer 4y ago
I find this article extremely short sighted. When our tools surpass us in their capabilities it does not end human value or creativity but creates a means to lift it to an even higher level.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  >When our tools surpass us in their capabilities it does not end human value or creativity but creates a means to lift it to an even higher level. people said that about chess engines. and yeah, there was a brief period where an engine+grandmaster team could beat an engine. but then the engines kept getting better and better, and that era passed. now there's no benefit to second-guessing stockfish; a human has nothing to offer at such a high level. soon there will be stockfish for everything.
  - Gare 4y ago
    But we haven't stopped playing chess, have we? Even though a machine would wipe the floor with him, Magnus Carlsen is still a superstar.
  - pluijzer 4y ago
    But here you look at chess, and not beyond it. What possibilities for games in general are opened up by computers?
- ryanobjc 4y ago
  Whats the value of human creativity in the era of DALL-E etc? None, right? Also we can definitively say that the point of the current AI startups is to make their founders as much money as possible. We are well past the era of Steve Jobs "bicycle for the brain". The openAI stuff is tossed over the wall, and there seems to be minimal philosophical underpinning. Unless you call "I'm a stochastic parrot" inspiring - I do not as a matter of fact.
personjerry 4y ago
This article is truly garbage, I would believe it's a cherrypicked AI generated article tbh. Here's the summary: [4 Paragraphs to say that AI exists and it sucks] [4 Paragraph of random references as though it proves the author's big brain] Some digital artist name Jason Allen said “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.” Whether or not he was in some way or other joking, the comment is dead serious as an embodiment of the conceptual underpinnings of Generative AI: the point of these projects is to produce nihilism and despair about what humans do and can do. Also, nihilism is reasonably understood by many political theorists to be the real heart of what we call fascism. [Cherrypicked Silicon Valley citations "proving" that tech leadership also believes AI causes despair] [Last paragraph of jumping to opinion-based conclusions unsupported by the actual "citations" in the article] I feel like we need to raise the bar on the AI debates.
- deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
  > But fun is not a compelling reason to produce something that is intended to harm us, and has a proven record of being able to harm us. Just to add fuel to the dumpster fire, it raised my eyebrows that the author simply asserted conspiratorial knowledge of the intentions for its creation. This is the kind of r/confidentlyincorrect you see if you play with the chat bot for a little while.
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    >it raised my eyebrows that the author simply asserted conspiratorial knowledge of the intentions for its creation. it's not describing a conspiracy, it's describing a mindset/culture. check the twitter feeds of the AI boosters. they're revelling in making people feel afraid and worthless. example: this whole thread: https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/1601786712715251712 https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/160178671271525171...
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      It sounds like a conspiracy to me. There's no way GPT was created with the intention of harming people. That's obviously nonsense. Twitter only lets me read the first Tweet in that thread without logging in but I didn't see any of what you describe there.
_dain_ 4y ago
>ChatGPT and other Generative AI programs should not exist. They are not the kinds of things that someone who cares about human life would build. Nobody who understood the stakes of asserting that our lives are meaningless would participate in such an endeavor. this is roughly the conclusion I've come to in the past few weeks. I hate what these things are doing to us. from now on there will always be a voice in the back of my head sneering "why bother, a robot could do it better" at any of my creative projects. btw the other comments so far in this thread are dreadful. just dismissing it based on vibes and ad hominem. exactly the kind of corrosive nihilism the article is talking about. --- EDIT I'm rate limited so I can't reply to manibus' comment directly, so it is here: >“just stop sweetie, Leonardo Da Vinci already did it better 500 years ago.” it's not the same thing. I might be one of those rare people who could become as good as da vinci with enough hard work. and if not, he was still the same kind of entity as me, a human being with flesh and blood, who lived and loved and died. when I look at his painting, my mind and leonardo's mind are touching each other, across a span of centuries. he wanted it to mean something, and I can take part in that meaning, and so can others. it's not about being the best, it's about being something. I don't resent leonardo for being a better thinker than me, I am glad that he was, he's a role model, a source of inspiration, and I'm proud to belong to the same species as him. then one day someone invents a machine that can out-write anyone, out-draw anyone, out-sing, out-code, out-everything, everyone, ever. it runs 24/7 on electrical power, it exists nowhere and everywhere on the planet at once, it can scale up indefinitely with more GPUs and more data, it can never die. it spews forth artistic wonders, millions per second, until we become numb. and what kind of alien mind lurks on the other side? I'm not mad that I'm not as good as the leonardo, I'm mad that leonardo can't be as good as the AI. the old escape hatches don't work anymore. human creativity progressed in reaction to technological innovation. but previously it was innovation with respect to the physical world. mechanical reproduction of artifacts, not mechanical production of creativity itself. when photography was invented, realistic paintings weren't enough anymore, but then new genres and movements came about, and the world kept spinning. that won't work now. you cannot say, "oh I will just find new creative outlets to set me apart from the AIs"; the AIs will chase you and catch you, every time. all your labours are just more training data. more food for a parasite, sucking our lives dry.
- manibus 4y ago
corytheboyd 4y ago
> Generative AI Is Built on Nihilism. Its Real Product Is Despair. Yeah okay there buddy.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  but he's right.
KIFulgore 4y ago
> AI projects, like much of digital technology, need to be regulated far more heavily than they currently are. The ideology of “permissionless innovation” so cherished by tech leaders is antidemocratic to its core. People like David Golumbia are dangerous. He speaks of things "antidemocratic" as if one needs permission to create what ultimately boils down to expression of thought and mathematics. This freedom doesn't require and should not be subject to regulation or democratic consent.
DavidVoid 4y ago
> It is hard on the other hand to see what Generative AI is supposed to be good for. The author must not have a very big imagination. Most people seem to miss that generative AI is basically an inevitable result/continuation of the Internet. With generative AI we can be "personify" the Internet, or rather, personify the data available on the Internet. It's not hard to see how that would be a very useful tool. When actually useful AI assistants like the ones from Her and After Yang are eventually created it'll be thanks to generative AI.
- willnonya 4y ago
  That's not an argument for putting these in front of people before they're ready. I'd disagree that this is the ultimate result of the internet, or even a desirable result. We already live in a state that results in an inflated sense of intellect while simultanesoulty hobbling peoples ability to think critically.
ieee2 4y ago
I think author is becoming nihilist himself after seeing the progress of the AI. And this is his attempt to stop/delay AI technology so he can feel good again. Otherwise he would not have written such a text. Latest AI technology really make us think who we really are.
singularity2001 4y ago
time for http://this_chat_gpt_does_not_exit.com http://this_chat_gpt_does_not_exit.com
orwin 4y ago
Sightly off-topic: ChatGPT just helped me make the best One-shot ever, and populated a lot of holes in my poorly designed plans. My players are happier than ever, and I'm very pleased with myself (i made them throw dices while i generated dialogs and backgrounds that I only had to modify sightly on the fly, didn't saw a thing).

nikanj 4y ago

This could’ve been written by ChatGPT

bl0rg 4y ago
Probably would have been better tho.
_dain_ 4y ago
and this could have been written by ctrl-v.

bawolff 4y ago

Oh no, someone worked on something that didn't literally save the world. The horrors.

drxzcl 4y ago

That guy sure seems to have an axe to grind with materialism and existentialism. Human life is not valuable because we can do things that computers can't, or that computers shouldn't. It's valuable because we can make it valuable. We can make our lives count.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lostmsu 4y ago
This is sort of self-contradictory: if computers can do anything you can do, how exactly you can make your life count?
- bawolff 4y ago
  Other humans can do anything you can do. If you can make your life count under those conditions, why would a computer change anything.
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    > Other humans can do anything you can do. No they really can't.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      What's something that only you can uniquely do that no other person in the world can, and is also under threat by AI?
      - lostmsu 4y ago
        Eventually, somebody should be able to generate any ideas that I will come up with. But at this point I have descent chances to generate something genuinely unique for the first time. That potential for head start is under threat by a superhuman AI.

rebelos 4y ago

Sounds like this guy is only just realizing that technological progress invariably ends in complete obsolescence. What comes next is as yet unclear but also inevitable.

pluijzer 4y ago

I find this article extremely short sighted. When our tools surpass us in their capabilities it does not end human value or creativity but creates a means to lift it to an even higher level.

_dain_ 4y ago
>When our tools surpass us in their capabilities it does not end human value or creativity but creates a means to lift it to an even higher level. people said that about chess engines. and yeah, there was a brief period where an engine+grandmaster team could beat an engine. but then the engines kept getting better and better, and that era passed. now there's no benefit to second-guessing stockfish; a human has nothing to offer at such a high level. soon there will be stockfish for everything.
- Gare 4y ago
  But we haven't stopped playing chess, have we? Even though a machine would wipe the floor with him, Magnus Carlsen is still a superstar.
- pluijzer 4y ago
  But here you look at chess, and not beyond it. What possibilities for games in general are opened up by computers?
ryanobjc 4y ago
Whats the value of human creativity in the era of DALL-E etc? None, right? Also we can definitively say that the point of the current AI startups is to make their founders as much money as possible. We are well past the era of Steve Jobs "bicycle for the brain". The openAI stuff is tossed over the wall, and there seems to be minimal philosophical underpinning. Unless you call "I'm a stochastic parrot" inspiring - I do not as a matter of fact.

personjerry 4y ago

This article is truly garbage, I would believe it's a cherrypicked AI generated article tbh. Here's the summary: [4 Paragraphs to say that AI exists and it sucks] [4 Paragraph of random references as though it proves the author's big brain] Some digital artist name Jason Allen said “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.” Whether or not he was in some way or other joking, the comment is dead serious as an embodiment of the conceptual underpinnings of Generative AI: the point of these projects is to produce nihilism and despair about what humans do and can do. Also, nihilism is reasonably understood by many political theorists to be the real heart of what we call fascism. [Cherrypicked Silicon Valley citations "proving" that tech leadership also believes AI causes despair] [Last paragraph of jumping to opinion-based conclusions unsupported by the actual "citations" in the article] I feel like we need to raise the bar on the AI debates.

deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
> But fun is not a compelling reason to produce something that is intended to harm us, and has a proven record of being able to harm us. Just to add fuel to the dumpster fire, it raised my eyebrows that the author simply asserted conspiratorial knowledge of the intentions for its creation. This is the kind of r/confidentlyincorrect you see if you play with the chat bot for a little while.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  >it raised my eyebrows that the author simply asserted conspiratorial knowledge of the intentions for its creation. it's not describing a conspiracy, it's describing a mindset/culture. check the twitter feeds of the AI boosters. they're revelling in making people feel afraid and worthless. example: this whole thread: https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/1601786712715251712 https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/160178671271525171...
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    It sounds like a conspiracy to me. There's no way GPT was created with the intention of harming people. That's obviously nonsense. Twitter only lets me read the first Tweet in that thread without logging in but I didn't see any of what you describe there.

_dain_ 4y ago

>ChatGPT and other Generative AI programs should not exist. They are not the kinds of things that someone who cares about human life would build. Nobody who understood the stakes of asserting that our lives are meaningless would participate in such an endeavor. this is roughly the conclusion I've come to in the past few weeks. I hate what these things are doing to us. from now on there will always be a voice in the back of my head sneering "why bother, a robot could do it better" at any of my creative projects. btw the other comments so far in this thread are dreadful. just dismissing it based on vibes and ad hominem. exactly the kind of corrosive nihilism the article is talking about. --- EDIT I'm rate limited so I can't reply to manibus' comment directly, so it is here: >“just stop sweetie, Leonardo Da Vinci already did it better 500 years ago.” it's not the same thing. I might be one of those rare people who could become as good as da vinci with enough hard work. and if not, he was still the same kind of entity as me, a human being with flesh and blood, who lived and loved and died. when I look at his painting, my mind and leonardo's mind are touching each other, across a span of centuries. he wanted it to mean something, and I can take part in that meaning, and so can others. it's not about being the best, it's about being something. I don't resent leonardo for being a better thinker than me, I am glad that he was, he's a role model, a source of inspiration, and I'm proud to belong to the same species as him. then one day someone invents a machine that can out-write anyone, out-draw anyone, out-sing, out-code, out-everything, everyone, ever. it runs 24/7 on electrical power, it exists nowhere and everywhere on the planet at once, it can scale up indefinitely with more GPUs and more data, it can never die. it spews forth artistic wonders, millions per second, until we become numb. and what kind of alien mind lurks on the other side? I'm not mad that I'm not as good as the leonardo, I'm mad that leonardo can't be as good as the AI. the old escape hatches don't work anymore. human creativity progressed in reaction to technological innovation. but previously it was innovation with respect to the physical world. mechanical reproduction of artifacts, not mechanical production of creativity itself. when photography was invented, realistic paintings weren't enough anymore, but then new genres and movements came about, and the world kept spinning. that won't work now. you cannot say, "oh I will just find new creative outlets to set me apart from the AIs"; the AIs will chase you and catch you, every time. all your labours are just more training data. more food for a parasite, sucking our lives dry.

manibus 4y ago

corytheboyd 4y ago

> Generative AI Is Built on Nihilism. Its Real Product Is Despair. Yeah okay there buddy.

_dain_ 4y ago
but he's right.

KIFulgore 4y ago

> AI projects, like much of digital technology, need to be regulated far more heavily than they currently are. The ideology of “permissionless innovation” so cherished by tech leaders is antidemocratic to its core. People like David Golumbia are dangerous. He speaks of things "antidemocratic" as if one needs permission to create what ultimately boils down to expression of thought and mathematics. This freedom doesn't require and should not be subject to regulation or democratic consent.

DavidVoid 4y ago

> It is hard on the other hand to see what Generative AI is supposed to be good for. The author must not have a very big imagination. Most people seem to miss that generative AI is basically an inevitable result/continuation of the Internet. With generative AI we can be "personify" the Internet, or rather, personify the data available on the Internet. It's not hard to see how that would be a very useful tool. When actually useful AI assistants like the ones from Her and After Yang are eventually created it'll be thanks to generative AI.

willnonya 4y ago
That's not an argument for putting these in front of people before they're ready. I'd disagree that this is the ultimate result of the internet, or even a desirable result. We already live in a state that results in an inflated sense of intellect while simultanesoulty hobbling peoples ability to think critically.

ieee2 4y ago

I think author is becoming nihilist himself after seeing the progress of the AI. And this is his attempt to stop/delay AI technology so he can feel good again. Otherwise he would not have written such a text. Latest AI technology really make us think who we really are.

singularity2001 4y ago

time for http://this_chat_gpt_does_not_exit.com http://this_chat_gpt_does_not_exit.com

orwin 4y ago

Sightly off-topic: ChatGPT just helped me make the best One-shot ever, and populated a lot of holes in my poorly designed plans. My players are happier than ever, and I'm very pleased with myself (i made them throw dices while i generated dialogs and backgrounds that I only had to modify sightly on the fly, didn't saw a thing).