3 ms·

These ChatGPT sessions are something like an ink-blot test. You see the end of human society. Others see something that can't count backwards from 10. For now

These ChatGPT sessions are something like an ink-blot test. You see the end of human society. Others see something that can't count backwards from 10. For now, this thing is a probabilities trick, similar to a Magic Eight Ball toy in function and impressiveness. These conversations are no more indicative of intelligence than "Signs point to yes" is indicative of paranormal activity. Both are clever. How impressed one should be with either, is an exercise entirely left to the reader.

0-_-0 4y ago
Isn't the human brain a probabilistic trick as well?
- mecsred 4y ago
  If you know the answer, you should write a paper. I think a few people are still working on that question.
- Terretta 4y ago
  FWIW, I pattern match that that's a reasonably likely explanation for my stimulus responses.
scarface74 4y ago
This definitely isn’t true. Like the other poster said, I’ve used this to generate complex regular expressions and it gave me sample Python code. I’ve also used it to create simple Python scripts to automate AWS stuff. I would definitely pay a monthly subscription for it.
- Terretta 4y ago
  I do pay a monthly subscription for it. It's a useful tool. So, surprisingly, is a Magic Eight Ball.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I don’t see a way to pay for it.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  Absolutely. Its creating code that’s going to production. Not a “trick” or a toy
revolvingocelot 4y ago
>These conversations are no more indicative of intelligence But the root post never once mentioned "intelligence". All that matters is whether the system's output, whether art or prose or a bash script, is good enough to be used. Even "good enough after a skilled human editor goes over it", which seems to be where we are now in art and prose and bash scripting, is more than good enough to fundamentally change global society forever. The handwringing about the measurably real effects of fake news and algorithmic nudging shows that society actually understands the threat. We've barely even entered the era in which writing becomes free-as-in-beer, and you can already ask ChatGPT to write you limericks about canola oil. Producing high quality N writing about X used to cost a lot of money, and the writer would take a variable amount of time to write it, let alone come up with it, structure it, polish it. It's not about some fear of an AI takeover; AI as a multitool wielded by the unscrupulous is the real threat.
- Terretta 4y ago
  > but the root post never once mentioned "intelligence" The word "intelligence" is in the term "AI".
  - hxugufjfjf 4y ago
    I prefer using Al, as in Weird Al Yankovich. Once you've gotten used to writing Al you'll never write AI again.
  - revolvingocelot 4y ago
    You wrote: >>>These conversations are no more indicative of intelligence than "Signs point to yes" is indicative of paranormal activity. Both are clever. How impressed one should be with either, is an exercise entirely left to the reader. Whether the AI's output is "indicative of intelligence", or whether the indication of intelligence was at all concerning to the root commenter, isn't the topic at hand. Stupid gotchas aren't actually responses. You sail right over the point the root commenter makes, and the one I attempt to clarify -- it's not about whether the AI is actually "intelligent", or if it can take over the world, or if it can impress or is pointless or is a Magic Eight Ball: it's about whether its output is "good enough" for purpose. And it is, so it'll be used by those who don't care about things like authenticity or art. Or authentic engagement with what's being said -- there will soon be the unlimited ability to frustrate people who care about addressing the topic at hand rather than what the bad-faith arguer wants the conversation to become.
im3w1l 4y ago
Well the difference is that one side is right and one is wrong. We can't say for sure which it is. But one is. Either society ends or it doesn't.
tyleo 4y ago
“similar to a Magic Eight Ball toy in function and impressiveness” This just isn’t true. The images and text generated by these AI are so much more than some dollar store gimmick. ChatGPT can generate regexes in seconds that take seasoned developers hours. DALL-E can generate images well enough to pass as illustrations in children’s books. We are well beyond 8-ball territory.
- weego 4y ago
  Only because we ascribe them shiny new novelty value. The limitations and flaws are still being overlooked in the honeymoon period of its existence. It's a useful tool for boilerplate text auto-population. In the same way as that image AI revolution has currently been harnessed to produce... content aware fill in Photoshop. It's absolutely not an epoch shift in the balance of man vs machine dominance. People are getting very caught up in the hype.
- capitalsigma 4y ago
  > generate regexes in seconds that take seasoned developers hours Who on earth is spending hours writing a single regex?
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    op didn't say simple.
    - capitalsigma 4y ago
      Neither did I.
  - norwalkbear 4y ago
    I do. I don't write regexes all day everyday. It takes me 15-30 mins to context switch sometimes an hour for complex ones.
- Terretta 4y ago
  >> “… similar to a Magic Eight Ball toy in function and impressiveness …” > This just isn't true. The images and text generated by these AI are so much more than some dollar store gimmick. Asking ChatGPT and Magic 8 Ball a string of questions are both essentially "just" returning probabilistic walks through canned latent space.

0-_-0 4y ago

Isn't the human brain a probabilistic trick as well?

mecsred 4y ago
If you know the answer, you should write a paper. I think a few people are still working on that question.
Terretta 4y ago
FWIW, I pattern match that that's a reasonably likely explanation for my stimulus responses.

scarface74 4y ago

This definitely isn’t true. Like the other poster said, I’ve used this to generate complex regular expressions and it gave me sample Python code. I’ve also used it to create simple Python scripts to automate AWS stuff. I would definitely pay a monthly subscription for it.

Terretta 4y ago
I do pay a monthly subscription for it. It's a useful tool. So, surprisingly, is a Magic Eight Ball.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I don’t see a way to pay for it.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
Absolutely. Its creating code that’s going to production. Not a “trick” or a toy

revolvingocelot 4y ago

>These conversations are no more indicative of intelligence But the root post never once mentioned "intelligence". All that matters is whether the system's output, whether art or prose or a bash script, is good enough to be used. Even "good enough after a skilled human editor goes over it", which seems to be where we are now in art and prose and bash scripting, is more than good enough to fundamentally change global society forever. The handwringing about the measurably real effects of fake news and algorithmic nudging shows that society actually understands the threat. We've barely even entered the era in which writing becomes free-as-in-beer, and you can already ask ChatGPT to write you limericks about canola oil. Producing high quality N writing about X used to cost a lot of money, and the writer would take a variable amount of time to write it, let alone come up with it, structure it, polish it. It's not about some fear of an AI takeover; AI as a multitool wielded by the unscrupulous is the real threat.

Terretta 4y ago
> but the root post never once mentioned "intelligence" The word "intelligence" is in the term "AI".
- hxugufjfjf 4y ago
  I prefer using Al, as in Weird Al Yankovich. Once you've gotten used to writing Al you'll never write AI again.
- revolvingocelot 4y ago
  You wrote: >>>These conversations are no more indicative of intelligence than "Signs point to yes" is indicative of paranormal activity. Both are clever. How impressed one should be with either, is an exercise entirely left to the reader. Whether the AI's output is "indicative of intelligence", or whether the indication of intelligence was at all concerning to the root commenter, isn't the topic at hand. Stupid gotchas aren't actually responses. You sail right over the point the root commenter makes, and the one I attempt to clarify -- it's not about whether the AI is actually "intelligent", or if it can take over the world, or if it can impress or is pointless or is a Magic Eight Ball: it's about whether its output is "good enough" for purpose. And it is, so it'll be used by those who don't care about things like authenticity or art. Or authentic engagement with what's being said -- there will soon be the unlimited ability to frustrate people who care about addressing the topic at hand rather than what the bad-faith arguer wants the conversation to become.

im3w1l 4y ago

Well the difference is that one side is right and one is wrong. We can't say for sure which it is. But one is. Either society ends or it doesn't.

tyleo 4y ago

“similar to a Magic Eight Ball toy in function and impressiveness” This just isn’t true. The images and text generated by these AI are so much more than some dollar store gimmick. ChatGPT can generate regexes in seconds that take seasoned developers hours. DALL-E can generate images well enough to pass as illustrations in children’s books. We are well beyond 8-ball territory.

weego 4y ago
Only because we ascribe them shiny new novelty value. The limitations and flaws are still being overlooked in the honeymoon period of its existence. It's a useful tool for boilerplate text auto-population. In the same way as that image AI revolution has currently been harnessed to produce... content aware fill in Photoshop. It's absolutely not an epoch shift in the balance of man vs machine dominance. People are getting very caught up in the hype.
capitalsigma 4y ago
> generate regexes in seconds that take seasoned developers hours Who on earth is spending hours writing a single regex?
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  op didn't say simple.
  - capitalsigma 4y ago
    Neither did I.
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  I do. I don't write regexes all day everyday. It takes me 15-30 mins to context switch sometimes an hour for complex ones.
Terretta 4y ago
>> “… similar to a Magic Eight Ball toy in function and impressiveness …” > This just isn't true. The images and text generated by these AI are so much more than some dollar store gimmick. Asking ChatGPT and Magic 8 Ball a string of questions are both essentially "just" returning probabilistic walks through canned latent space.