4 ms·

>in fact in some cases it could be harmful if someone who doesn't know the material already believes the nonsense it spits out I get what you mean, but that's

>in fact in some cases it could be harmful if someone who doesn't know the material already believes the nonsense it spits out I get what you mean, but that's also kind of silly. First, almost no one who is not in the field is going to be even asking it the kind of questions you are. Second, even if they do and try to use that as reasoning etc.. well, then that moron would basically find any type of source (i.e., random youtube video) to prove their "point". So I honestly think the "harmful" argument is completely out the window. We already opened that pandoras box years ago with basically every piece of human knowledge online in so many places and people making videos on almost everything with all sorts of varying views. People say this about the coding aspect as well "oh this is going to hurt the world because people will be just asking for code and it will be wrong!" Ok.. but it pretty much sounds like they were just going to do that anyway. Let's focus on the positives of this infant technology that is still insanely impressive. We are just seeing the beginning, right?

q845712 4y ago
I dunno man, I'm with the poster above (do we call that the gp?): We have lots of evidence that people in general don't have great truthiness filters for things they read online, and we have a tool that can very confidently say things that seem truthy but are not. Even before the internet, just in the age of radio and early TV, Churchill said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Now we have a tool that isn't lying through malice, volition, or any sort of intent, and that will combine jargon and phrases that seem authoritative into its misinformation. IMO responsible engineering involves considering the ups and downs of each solution - that's where the famous HA saying "if you have two you have one; if you have one you have none" comes from, dictating that we need at least 3 instances of a server for high-availability, right? What would it take to engineer this new tech for high accuracy? Where is anything other than the hubris of "we were so busy asking if we _could_, we never stopped to ask if we _should_" ?

q845712 4y ago

I dunno man, I'm with the poster above (do we call that the gp?): We have lots of evidence that people in general don't have great truthiness filters for things they read online, and we have a tool that can very confidently say things that seem truthy but are not. Even before the internet, just in the age of radio and early TV, Churchill said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Now we have a tool that isn't lying through malice, volition, or any sort of intent, and that will combine jargon and phrases that seem authoritative into its misinformation. IMO responsible engineering involves considering the ups and downs of each solution - that's where the famous HA saying "if you have two you have one; if you have one you have none" comes from, dictating that we need at least 3 instances of a server for high-availability, right? What would it take to engineer this new tech for high accuracy? Where is anything other than the hubris of "we were so busy asking if we _could_, we never stopped to ask if we _should_" ?