3 ms·
>These conversations are no more indicative of intelligence But the root post never once mentioned "intelligence". All that matters is whether the system's out
by 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 agoI prefer using Al, as in Weird Al Yankovich. Once you've gotten used to writing Al you'll never write AI again.
- revolvingocelot 4y agoYou 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.
- unshavedyak 4y agoYup. I could tell immediately from using it that i would use it for so many things if it was more correct. Or at the very least, less confidently incorrect. I found it to be an amazing learning assistant. It explained things in depth, and let me dive into basically any topic. I was floored with the amount of freedom i felt with it. Of course, i mostly tested it on things i already knew in depth. So i caught many areas it got subtly wrong. If it could either reduce this error rate or improve understanding of it's own knowledge bounds.. boy, i would use that every day. It didn't feel alive.. it felt like a calculator, but the best calculator i've ever seen. I was and am immensely excited for the v2 or v3. Also a little afraid.
- Terretta 4y agoYou're using it right. The poster above doesn't like Magic 8 Ball. So how about "abacus"? An accountant with an abacus is better at accounting than one without, but the abacus has no idea what accounting or math are, it can't even count. This thing is a remarkable abacus for information from The Pile. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00027 https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00027