5 ms·

Why would it be factually incorrect? You tell it to proof-read, not add stuff. It works great.

by Kiro 4y ago

madeofpalk 4y ago
ChatGPT does not know how to proof read. It is not an artificial inteligence. It will take your input and determine the most likely response matching the data it was trained with. Just like how ChatGPT fails at simple math - ChatGPT doesn't know math https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/38220/why-is-chatgpt-bad-at-math https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/38220/why-is-chatgpt-...
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I’ve learned over the last few months that there are certain trigger words that instigate basically pointless discussion around e.g. “what it means to learn”. I can now add “read” to that list. Let’s play word taboo! The rules are we can’t talk about GPT using anthropomorphic terminology. Does GPT predict less than useful mathematical computations? Yes, and not just less than useful but basically useless. Does GPT predict less than useful language translations, ranging from English-French, to summaries, in-the-style-of, etc? No, it’s actually quite useful as when confined to only the information contained in a prompt it doesn’t have to hallucinate an answer. It is not useful to anthropomorphize the functionality of these tools in either a practical or legal context. And everyone pick up a copy of Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein so y’all can learn about how to avoid snake-eating-tail discourse.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Of course you're more than welcome to use whatever tech for whatever purpose. Personally, I'm not confident that ChatGPT wouldn't hallucinate facts when prompted to 'just' proof-read. I would rather poor English than confident factual errors.
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      For example, here's a section from the Build Your Own Redis book: Our server will be able to process multiple requests from a client, to do that we need to implement some sort of “protocol”, at least to split requests apart from the TCP byte stream. The easiest way to split requests apart is by declaring how long the request is at the beginning of the request. Let’s use the following scheme. The protocol consists of 2 parts: a 4-byte little-endian integer indicating the length of the following request, and a variable length request. Starts from the code from the last chapter, the loop of the server is modified to handle multiple requests: GPT suggested this instead: Our server will process multiple requests from a client by implementing a protocol to separate requests from the TCP byte stream. The simplest method for separating requests is to include the length of each request at the start. The protocol consists of two parts: a 4-byte little-endian integer indicating the length of the request and a variable-length request. The server code from the previous chapter has been modified to handle multiple requests in the following manner: There are no hallucinated facts because the most probable continuation of the given prompts is one that can gather all required information from the original text itself. It's sort of like the difference between the truthfulness of analytic and synthetic claims. An analytic claim would be like "It is raining and you're outside, naked, and unsheltered so therefor water is falling on your skin from the sky." A synthetic claim would be like "It is raining outside". Synthetic claims are said to be contingent on facts outside the text itself. These are the cases where GPT is completely useless. The error rate for analytic claims is much lower although anyone who is writing anything should do a lot of review before publishing. Think of it like you asked your assistant to write something. You're gonna wanna read it over before you slap your name on it. I mean, I actually don't care if you use these tools or not but your explanation of how it works will guide other readers in the wrong direction so I feel the need to correct the narrative you've presented.
      - chillfox 4y ago
        What prompt did you use? and how big chunks of text would you say it can handle reliably.
        4y ago
- Kiro 4y ago
  Still works great to ask it to proofread so whatever point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

Why would it be factually incorrect? You tell it to proof-read, not add stuff. It works great.

by Kiro 4y ago

Why would it be factually incorrect? You tell it to proof-read, not add stuff. It works great.

ChatGPT does not know how to proof read. It is not an artificial inteligence. It will take your input and determine the most likely response matching the data it was trained with. Just like how ChatGPT fails at simple math - ChatGPT doesn't know math https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/38220/why-is-chatgpt-bad-at-math https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/38220/why-is-chatgpt-...

williamcotton 4y ago
I’ve learned over the last few months that there are certain trigger words that instigate basically pointless discussion around e.g. “what it means to learn”. I can now add “read” to that list. Let’s play word taboo! The rules are we can’t talk about GPT using anthropomorphic terminology. Does GPT predict less than useful mathematical computations? Yes, and not just less than useful but basically useless. Does GPT predict less than useful language translations, ranging from English-French, to summaries, in-the-style-of, etc? No, it’s actually quite useful as when confined to only the information contained in a prompt it doesn’t have to hallucinate an answer. It is not useful to anthropomorphize the functionality of these tools in either a practical or legal context. And everyone pick up a copy of Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein so y’all can learn about how to avoid snake-eating-tail discourse.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Of course you're more than welcome to use whatever tech for whatever purpose. Personally, I'm not confident that ChatGPT wouldn't hallucinate facts when prompted to 'just' proof-read. I would rather poor English than confident factual errors.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    For example, here's a section from the Build Your Own Redis book: Our server will be able to process multiple requests from a client, to do that we need to implement some sort of “protocol”, at least to split requests apart from the TCP byte stream. The easiest way to split requests apart is by declaring how long the request is at the beginning of the request. Let’s use the following scheme. The protocol consists of 2 parts: a 4-byte little-endian integer indicating the length of the following request, and a variable length request. Starts from the code from the last chapter, the loop of the server is modified to handle multiple requests: GPT suggested this instead: Our server will process multiple requests from a client by implementing a protocol to separate requests from the TCP byte stream. The simplest method for separating requests is to include the length of each request at the start. The protocol consists of two parts: a 4-byte little-endian integer indicating the length of the request and a variable-length request. The server code from the previous chapter has been modified to handle multiple requests in the following manner: There are no hallucinated facts because the most probable continuation of the given prompts is one that can gather all required information from the original text itself. It's sort of like the difference between the truthfulness of analytic and synthetic claims. An analytic claim would be like "It is raining and you're outside, naked, and unsheltered so therefor water is falling on your skin from the sky." A synthetic claim would be like "It is raining outside". Synthetic claims are said to be contingent on facts outside the text itself. These are the cases where GPT is completely useless. The error rate for analytic claims is much lower although anyone who is writing anything should do a lot of review before publishing. Think of it like you asked your assistant to write something. You're gonna wanna read it over before you slap your name on it. I mean, I actually don't care if you use these tools or not but your explanation of how it works will guide other readers in the wrong direction so I feel the need to correct the narrative you've presented.
    - chillfox 4y ago
      What prompt did you use? and how big chunks of text would you say it can handle reliably.
      - 4y ago
Kiro 4y ago
Still works great to ask it to proofread so whatever point you're trying to make is irrelevant.