6 ms·
I found the article really difficult to read, so I summarised it with ChatGPT Large language models like the GPT family are statistical models that learn the s
by LAC-Tech 4y ago
I found the article really difficult to read, so I summarised it with ChatGPT
Large language models like the GPT family are statistical models that learn the structure of language by predicting missing words in sentences. These models are seen as "bullshit generators" as they have no idea what they are talking about and are designed to produce baseless assertions with confidence. The addition of reinforcement learning from human feedback helps prevent the model from producing hate speech, but it still can't change the underlying language patterns learned from the internet, which include conspiracy theories. The dangers of these models go deeper than bias and discrimination and despite claims of "artificial general intelligence", the concept is inseparable from ideas of innate supremacy and hierarchy. Companies like OpenAI receive billions in investment for these technologies, not for actual AI, but to replace or precaritize human workers. AI is a political project and should be seen as such.
Which quickly allows me to ascertain the article wasn't worth reading in the first place.
Thanks ChatGPT!
- cataphract 4y agoI found the article so devoid of insight, just a regurgitation of clichés from the left, that I was left wondering if it was written by ChatGPT.
- emodendroket 4y agoI’m not sure why we need comments from people proud that they couldn’t be troubled to read the article that is supposedly being discussed, but it seems like a popular genre of reply whenever something tech-critical is posted.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago[dead]
- dcow 4y agoI tried to read the article too and found it both visually unpleasant and intellectually unfocused. GP is making the rather comically clever point that ChatGPT is useful to summarize text that might be difficult for humans to parse, even a text claiming that ChatGPT is a useless model only capable of spewing Islamophobic speech and in need of burying. I mean the article ends on some tangent about reactionary solutionism... If you don't see the satire in that, well, you might be taking life too seriously.
- jbenjoseph 4y ago>both visually unpleasant Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that. It's like the author picked a font/CSS combo to simulate a book with horrible typesetting.
- a10c 4y agoDoes it look like a blurred screenshot of text to anyone else?
- dcow 4y agoLove the book, and LaTeX, but it does give me these vibes https://www.google.com/books/edition/Walk_Through_Combinatorics_A_An_Introduc/32NIDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Walk_Through_Combinator....
- pvg 4y agoI tried to read the article too and found it both visually unpleasant and intellectually unfocused. That's fine but then you're probably not in a position to have curious conversation about it. Which is also fine! But the solution to that is to find something else that's interesting to you, rather than to gunk up the thread for the people who are interested in discussing the piece.
- dcow 4y agoDespite the qualities I ascribed to it, I actually read the piece. That's why I chuckled at the satire of having ChatGPT summarize it. I thought it sufficiently concise and every so slightly poignant commentary, daresay curious. I haven't disparaged anybody else for their own curious conversation, have I? If you'd like to discuss whether, "The structural injustices and supremacist perspectives layered into AI put it firmly on the path of eugenicist solutions to social problems.", well, be my guest.
- pvg 4y ago
- FPGAhacker 4y agoWhile it may be frustrating to see comments from people who haven't read the article being discussed, it's important to recognize that everyone consumes and processes information in different ways. Some people may prefer to skim articles or jump straight to the comments section to get a sense of the wider conversation, rather than reading every detail of the article itself. Some people may not have the time or the interest to read lengthy articles and may prefer to get the gist of the discussion through comments. It's important to keep an open mind and respect the ways in which others consume and engage with information. —thus spake chatGPT
- swayvil 4y agoIt's tech-person-splaining
- eek2121 4y agoAI is still not AI, still cannot pass the 'critical thinking' task. I can prove this without having ever interacted with ChatGPT. The problem with "A.I." is that it continues to only be able to take the 'almost best' sum of ideology and not invent new ideas. AI cannot innovate. It can only imitate.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoWhat about the people who actually read the original article word for word - aren't they the real victims?
- emodendroket 4y agoI don’t think so. I don’t agree with everything it says but I found it interesting enough. “Is generating a lot of nonsense and boilerplate a justifiable use of scarce resources?” is actually a rather profound question.
- stevenhuang 4y agoThe article does not contribute anything new. At this point if I see any variation of "bullshit generator" used to downplay the significance of LLMs I will instantly discount the author as a person who has already lost the plot. Just smile politely and leave them to their devices as the world changes around them.
- dcow 4y agoYou won my internet for the day. Thanks LAC-Tech!
- esjeon 4y agoThis is not even a correct summary of the content of the post. I'm genuinely entertained by the sheer amount of shamelessness demonstrated here. Seriously, though, technology at wrong hands endorses bad behaviors.
- renewiltord 4y agoI went and wasted my time reading the post and it turns out the ChatGPT summary was accurate and this comment that it is not accurate was grossly wrong. Wish I hadn't wasted my time.
- efitz 4y agoI think this is where the OP says "QED".
- neoromantique 4y agoChatGPT is not really meant for summarizing things, Kagi Summarizer for example: "This article discusses the dangers of ChatGPT, a large language model, and how it is used to generate 'bullshit' and propagate existing power structures. It argues that the model is harmful and that its plausibility makes it even more dangerous. The article also highlights the exploitative labour practices that go into maintaining the model, as well as the underlying supremacist perspectives that are embedded in AI. The author suggests that instead of embracing AI, we should focus on centring activities of care and search for alternatives to algorithmic immiseration."
- nailer 4y agoWhy is it incorrect? You haven’t provided any supporting arguments.
- m3kw9 4y agoAnd what makes you think this is a correct summary
- layer8 4y agoHere is Kagi’s summary: This article discusses the dangers of ChatGPT, a large language model, and how it is used to generate 'bullshit' and propagate existing power structures. It argues that the model is harmful and that its plausibility makes it even more dangerous. The article also highlights the exploitative labour practices that go into maintaining the model, as well as the underlying supremacist perspectives that are embedded in AI. The author suggests that instead of embracing AI, we should focus on centring activities of care and search for alternatives to algorithmic immiseration. Both miss that it’s an advertorial for the author’s book.
- ihatepython 4y agoMy impression is that dumb people (for lack of a better term) find ChatGPT useful, while smart people (again, for lack of a better term) don't. It's kind of like how a jazz musician doesn't like for example Ed Sheeran, but the average person does.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pvg 4y agoIt runs against the purpose of HN, though. Take a look at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34662167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34662167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34240213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34240213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34178237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34178237
- bglazer 4y agoFrom the HN guidelines on comments: “Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously“ I downvoted you because your comment is both snarky and profoundly incurious. Seriously, either take the time to engage with whats actually written in the post or don’t bother posting lazy swipes. As has been noted by others, the ChatGPT summary isn’t even really correct. I’ll admit the piece is written in jargony social science language, but it makes real, interesting points about the social changes that are going to accompany introduction of LLM’s into society.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoIf authors want people to read their articles they should learn to write. Let's put snarkiness to one side - the article was shit. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it. Poorly written, with the same dumb thoughts - and I use the term loosely - I can get from any spoiled sophmore at any university in the western world. The only reason it got any traction was a clickbait title about a hot topic. So I feel perfectly OK about shitting all over it. If you don't, flag me. It's the internet, it really doesn't matter.
- bglazer 4y agoYou still haven’t referenced a single thought actually expressed in the article.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoThere was a single thought expressed in the article!?
- bglazer 4y agoHere's what I took from it: LLM's encode and are very adept at generating hate and bullshit. To counter that, big wealthy companies pay foreign workers low wages to do the very unpleasant task of reading and tagging the worst outputs from their LLM. This is a bad state of affairs and should be changed. Yes, they frame this is in weird academic phrases. But, it's really not hard to get the point, even a tiny modicum of intellectual curiosity would get you there.