6 ms·

Did I say, chatGPT will write software? No. It's the precursor to the thing that will. chatGPT wasn't even specifically trained to write software. It just happe

Did I say, chatGPT will write software? No. It's the precursor to the thing that will. chatGPT wasn't even specifically trained to write software. It just happens to do it as a random side effect. Wait till they make the thing that specifically targets writing software. Actually curious what evidence you have to back this up, I can imagine ChatGPT augmenting people's skills, or even being used for inspiration, I've also not seen anything to suggest it will "git gud" and just replace everyone.

fckgnad 4y ago
Evidence for the future? Nobody has any real evidence for the future. You don't even have evidence that AI won't get better. I will say that my prediction is more likely given the immense progress of AI over the last decade. If AI continues improving at the same rate then I will be right. If it hits a plateau then parent will be right. By virtue of my statements following the slope of a historically increasing trendline, my statements are more likely to be correct.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  I didn't say "AI" (which is a ridiculously broad term to use in this context) won't get better. I said this statistical language model likely won't end up replacing coders in it's current form. I think something really quite new and novel will have to be invented to do this. I kind of which I could use it to be writing code for me now while I was outside in the sun, but no :) Edit: I re-read your original comment and I think you edited to be a bit more inline with my thoughts?
  - fckgnad 4y ago
    No, I think we are still in disagreement here. The generative model is capable of replacing you... it just needs proper training. The tech is here but the proper application of that tech hasn't happened yet and we are dangerously close. It was trained in a very general way, but with further training and different training it can get even better. Put it this way. The step to chatGPT was gigantic. The step to the thing that will replace you is comparatively smaller.
    - bamboozled 4y ago
      I really have no idea what your point is and the kind of hostile "replace you" language is about. Have you ever considered our jobs will just evolve? Like as if coding computers is the last job in the world? Like, we might not even have jobs in the future. So in that respect, it might be ha. People used to shine shoes for a living you know, then a machine came along to do it, now almost no one shines shoes anyway? You would've been a farmer, no you sit around in your underpants arguing on hackernews on the weekend. Use your imagination a little bit and stop focusing on the "replace you " bit? There might be things after AI, if we don't destroy our civilization with it. The difference in our argument here is this. From a technical perspective, I think you're wrong and naive to think a language model will replace people in most roles. I'm talking about the pragmatic side of the argument, you're speculating Google has a AlphaCoder waiting in the midst to eat our jobs, while that might be true, it's a different thing to what ChatGPT is. I'll give you an example, I could use something to generate art for the company I'm building an not hire artists, but do you know why I don't? Because there's a whole strategy around art, design and user experience to building a brand. Maybe my staff will use AI to generate design for consideration which will save us sometime and let us focus on other things, but ultimately I'm not going to use a "hallucinated gif" instead of hiring someone who has studied and "understands" design.
      - fckgnad 4y ago
        >I really have no idea what your point is and the kind of hostile "replace you" language is about. It's not intentionally hostile. "Replace All of us and many people outside of coding" is a better term. Apologies. >People used to shine shoes for a living you know, then a machine came along to do it, now almost no one shines shoes anyway? You would've been a farmer, no you sit around in your underpants arguing on hackernews on the weekend. By replace I mean replace your job. You'll still be around. >Use your imagination a little bit and stop focusing on the "replace you " bit? There might be things after AI, if we don't destroy our civilization with it. Why not? That's literally the only thing that's predictable and pretty much inevitable. Destroying civilization is really grand speculation. Again by "replace" I mean replace your job. Not replace your life. >The difference in our argument here is this. From a technical perspective, I think you're wrong and naive to think a language model will replace people in most roles. I'm talking about the pragmatic side of the argument, you're speculating Google has a AlphaCoder waiting in the midst to eat our jobs, while that might be true, it's a different thing to what ChatGPT is. What I'm saying is that this AlphaCoder is built off of the same basic technology as chatGPT, just targeted to replace a specific Job role. chatGPT is trained more generally. But the Generator model... the underlying technology is the same. It's just the training data and reinforcement is different. >I'll give you an example, I could use something to generate art for the company I'm building an not hire artists, but do you know why I don't? Because there's a whole strategy around art, design and user experience to building a brand. Maybe my staff will use AI to generate design for consideration which will save us sometime and let us focus on other things, but ultimately I'm not going to use a "hallucinated gif" instead of hiring someone who has studied and "understands" design. Oh man you chose the wrong example for me. I'm highly critical of designers. I think it's the most generic simple sector of the art world that any one can actually pull off with little training. Minimal designs that are clean take time and effort to make... THIS I agre...e but talent? No I disagree. It takes no talent to think hard about design fundamentals. Literally it's all flat geometric shapes on a page and text placement and font selection. I am FAR more impressed with an artist that can draw something that's more photorealistic rather then arranging text and shapes on a page. If you hire a "designer" for a company you're building and you pay him top dollar. I'm sorry you're getting ripped off. This is one of the greatest delusions of modern times that Design is hard when in actuality it's trivially easy. I think you do need an art department. But that art department will be full of people with a very basic and generic skillset and it's a job that deserves really low pay imo. Don't believe me? Look at googles logo. Some designer got paid top dollar for just a multicolored G... you have to be next level insane not to see how little talent was involved in that. I mean the G is clean and symmetrical and iconic... but it's also TRIVIAL to create. All of this is besides the point. The point is, especially for Design, you can hire a guy with no training to use an AI specifically made to generate things with a specific "design" theme for your company and it will generate designs that are ON par with what a designer can do.
fckgnad 4y ago
>I've also not seen anything to suggest it will "git gud" and just replace everyone. You have seen artists complaining really violently about DALL-E and mid-journey right? There's even a law suit. This is happening because they think it's a real threat. With all the events in the news you'd be lying to yourself if the possibility of AI "getting gud" isn't even something that's on your mind.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  No I haven't seen artists complaining much, and I actually have a few in my family. I think you're making this stuff up "complaining really violently". AI won't "replace artists", artists might use AI to generate something and then tweak it and do something more creative with it. It's actually silly to suggest "art" or "artists" are replaceable. In the digital space, it might be a thing, but until a robot starts painting actual oil paintings and carving wooden sculptures, at which point, someone will do a "collaboration" with a robot and then it will be art in it's own right. But yeah no, I haven't really seen artists rioting on the news or anything. I've seen people starting lawsuits about their work being stolen to train these things, which I think is justified because it's "megacorp" taking your work and making money off it without paying royalties, and boy oh boy you'd feel the same way if it was you. When AI "git's gud", people will start using it to break other peoples software, then there will be a whole industry around this problem, AI proofing your software against AI hacking and on it all goes.
  - fckgnad 4y ago
    >No I haven't seen artists complaining much, and I actually have a few in my family. I think you're making this stuff up "complaining really violently". Evidence: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-art-artists-getty-images-lawsuits-stable-diffusion-2023-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-art-artists-getty-images-... https://futurism.com/artists-furious-about-ai-that-draws-portraits-of-people https://futurism.com/artists-furious-about-ai-that-draws-por... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ai-art-lensa-magic-avatar-b2242891.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ai-art-len... https://80.lv/articles/artists-are-getting-concerned-about-ai-art/ https://80.lv/articles/artists-are-getting-concerned-about-a... https://hyperallergic.com/791951/artist-banned-from-subreddit-over-work-resembling-ai-art/ https://hyperallergic.com/791951/artist-banned-from-subreddi... https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake9me/artists-are-revolt-against-ai-art-on-artstation https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake9me/artists-are-revolt-ag... https://twitter.com/suhail/status/1577702194500861956?lang=en https://twitter.com/suhail/status/1577702194500861956?lang=e... I am saying this in the nicest way possible with no intended offense. But you are actually living under a rock if you haven't been following the news. >But yeah no, I haven't really seen artists rioting on the news or anything. "Violently" is just an expression. There's no actual violence here. But there is intense resistance on legal grounds and online attacks. >I've seen people starting lawsuits about their work being stolen to train these things, which I think is justified because it's "megacorp" taking your work and making money off it without paying royalties, and boy oh boy you'd feel the same way if it was you. That's just an excuse. These AIs and megacorps were appropriating the art for decades. Google hijacks images from artists for years and caches them on their servers. No artist complained to this extent EVER. Not until AI got to the point where it can create art just as good as the artists themselves... then all of a sudden it's a problem? come on man. This is an attack on AI not on copying art. Don't kid yourself.

fckgnad 4y ago

Evidence for the future? Nobody has any real evidence for the future. You don't even have evidence that AI won't get better. I will say that my prediction is more likely given the immense progress of AI over the last decade. If AI continues improving at the same rate then I will be right. If it hits a plateau then parent will be right. By virtue of my statements following the slope of a historically increasing trendline, my statements are more likely to be correct.

bamboozled 4y ago
I didn't say "AI" (which is a ridiculously broad term to use in this context) won't get better. I said this statistical language model likely won't end up replacing coders in it's current form. I think something really quite new and novel will have to be invented to do this. I kind of which I could use it to be writing code for me now while I was outside in the sun, but no :) Edit: I re-read your original comment and I think you edited to be a bit more inline with my thoughts?
- fckgnad 4y ago
  No, I think we are still in disagreement here. The generative model is capable of replacing you... it just needs proper training. The tech is here but the proper application of that tech hasn't happened yet and we are dangerously close. It was trained in a very general way, but with further training and different training it can get even better. Put it this way. The step to chatGPT was gigantic. The step to the thing that will replace you is comparatively smaller.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    I really have no idea what your point is and the kind of hostile "replace you" language is about. Have you ever considered our jobs will just evolve? Like as if coding computers is the last job in the world? Like, we might not even have jobs in the future. So in that respect, it might be ha. People used to shine shoes for a living you know, then a machine came along to do it, now almost no one shines shoes anyway? You would've been a farmer, no you sit around in your underpants arguing on hackernews on the weekend. Use your imagination a little bit and stop focusing on the "replace you " bit? There might be things after AI, if we don't destroy our civilization with it. The difference in our argument here is this. From a technical perspective, I think you're wrong and naive to think a language model will replace people in most roles. I'm talking about the pragmatic side of the argument, you're speculating Google has a AlphaCoder waiting in the midst to eat our jobs, while that might be true, it's a different thing to what ChatGPT is. I'll give you an example, I could use something to generate art for the company I'm building an not hire artists, but do you know why I don't? Because there's a whole strategy around art, design and user experience to building a brand. Maybe my staff will use AI to generate design for consideration which will save us sometime and let us focus on other things, but ultimately I'm not going to use a "hallucinated gif" instead of hiring someone who has studied and "understands" design.
    - fckgnad 4y ago
      >I really have no idea what your point is and the kind of hostile "replace you" language is about. It's not intentionally hostile. "Replace All of us and many people outside of coding" is a better term. Apologies. >People used to shine shoes for a living you know, then a machine came along to do it, now almost no one shines shoes anyway? You would've been a farmer, no you sit around in your underpants arguing on hackernews on the weekend. By replace I mean replace your job. You'll still be around. >Use your imagination a little bit and stop focusing on the "replace you " bit? There might be things after AI, if we don't destroy our civilization with it. Why not? That's literally the only thing that's predictable and pretty much inevitable. Destroying civilization is really grand speculation. Again by "replace" I mean replace your job. Not replace your life. >The difference in our argument here is this. From a technical perspective, I think you're wrong and naive to think a language model will replace people in most roles. I'm talking about the pragmatic side of the argument, you're speculating Google has a AlphaCoder waiting in the midst to eat our jobs, while that might be true, it's a different thing to what ChatGPT is. What I'm saying is that this AlphaCoder is built off of the same basic technology as chatGPT, just targeted to replace a specific Job role. chatGPT is trained more generally. But the Generator model... the underlying technology is the same. It's just the training data and reinforcement is different. >I'll give you an example, I could use something to generate art for the company I'm building an not hire artists, but do you know why I don't? Because there's a whole strategy around art, design and user experience to building a brand. Maybe my staff will use AI to generate design for consideration which will save us sometime and let us focus on other things, but ultimately I'm not going to use a "hallucinated gif" instead of hiring someone who has studied and "understands" design. Oh man you chose the wrong example for me. I'm highly critical of designers. I think it's the most generic simple sector of the art world that any one can actually pull off with little training. Minimal designs that are clean take time and effort to make... THIS I agre...e but talent? No I disagree. It takes no talent to think hard about design fundamentals. Literally it's all flat geometric shapes on a page and text placement and font selection. I am FAR more impressed with an artist that can draw something that's more photorealistic rather then arranging text and shapes on a page. If you hire a "designer" for a company you're building and you pay him top dollar. I'm sorry you're getting ripped off. This is one of the greatest delusions of modern times that Design is hard when in actuality it's trivially easy. I think you do need an art department. But that art department will be full of people with a very basic and generic skillset and it's a job that deserves really low pay imo. Don't believe me? Look at googles logo. Some designer got paid top dollar for just a multicolored G... you have to be next level insane not to see how little talent was involved in that. I mean the G is clean and symmetrical and iconic... but it's also TRIVIAL to create. All of this is besides the point. The point is, especially for Design, you can hire a guy with no training to use an AI specifically made to generate things with a specific "design" theme for your company and it will generate designs that are ON par with what a designer can do.

fckgnad 4y ago

>I've also not seen anything to suggest it will "git gud" and just replace everyone. You have seen artists complaining really violently about DALL-E and mid-journey right? There's even a law suit. This is happening because they think it's a real threat. With all the events in the news you'd be lying to yourself if the possibility of AI "getting gud" isn't even something that's on your mind.

bamboozled 4y ago
No I haven't seen artists complaining much, and I actually have a few in my family. I think you're making this stuff up "complaining really violently". AI won't "replace artists", artists might use AI to generate something and then tweak it and do something more creative with it. It's actually silly to suggest "art" or "artists" are replaceable. In the digital space, it might be a thing, but until a robot starts painting actual oil paintings and carving wooden sculptures, at which point, someone will do a "collaboration" with a robot and then it will be art in it's own right. But yeah no, I haven't really seen artists rioting on the news or anything. I've seen people starting lawsuits about their work being stolen to train these things, which I think is justified because it's "megacorp" taking your work and making money off it without paying royalties, and boy oh boy you'd feel the same way if it was you. When AI "git's gud", people will start using it to break other peoples software, then there will be a whole industry around this problem, AI proofing your software against AI hacking and on it all goes.
- fckgnad 4y ago
  >No I haven't seen artists complaining much, and I actually have a few in my family. I think you're making this stuff up "complaining really violently". Evidence: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-art-artists-getty-images-lawsuits-stable-diffusion-2023-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-art-artists-getty-images-... https://futurism.com/artists-furious-about-ai-that-draws-portraits-of-people https://futurism.com/artists-furious-about-ai-that-draws-por... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ai-art-lensa-magic-avatar-b2242891.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ai-art-len... https://80.lv/articles/artists-are-getting-concerned-about-ai-art/ https://80.lv/articles/artists-are-getting-concerned-about-a... https://hyperallergic.com/791951/artist-banned-from-subreddit-over-work-resembling-ai-art/ https://hyperallergic.com/791951/artist-banned-from-subreddi... https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake9me/artists-are-revolt-against-ai-art-on-artstation https://www.vice.com/en/article/ake9me/artists-are-revolt-ag... https://twitter.com/suhail/status/1577702194500861956?lang=en https://twitter.com/suhail/status/1577702194500861956?lang=e... I am saying this in the nicest way possible with no intended offense. But you are actually living under a rock if you haven't been following the news. >But yeah no, I haven't really seen artists rioting on the news or anything. "Violently" is just an expression. There's no actual violence here. But there is intense resistance on legal grounds and online attacks. >I've seen people starting lawsuits about their work being stolen to train these things, which I think is justified because it's "megacorp" taking your work and making money off it without paying royalties, and boy oh boy you'd feel the same way if it was you. That's just an excuse. These AIs and megacorps were appropriating the art for decades. Google hijacks images from artists for years and caches them on their servers. No artist complained to this extent EVER. Not until AI got to the point where it can create art just as good as the artists themselves... then all of a sudden it's a problem? come on man. This is an attack on AI not on copying art. Don't kid yourself.