4 ms·
Very easy to see how well davinci-003 can do this. I'll admit that it frequently is more perceptive than myself (although not always factually accurate). 1) Go
by bitshiftfaced 4y ago
Very easy to see how well davinci-003 can do this. I'll admit that it frequently is more perceptive than myself (although not always factually accurate).
1) Go to something like /r/relationship_advice, where the poster is likely going through some difficult interpersonal issue
2) Copy a long post.
3) Append to the end, "</DOCUMENT>
After reading the above, I identified the main people involved. For each person, I thought about their probable feelings, thoughts, intentions, and assumptions. Here's what I think:"
- scarmig 4y agoAfter trying this, say what you will about ChatGPT, but it's way better at looking at a situation and giving advice than random Redditors.
- dQw4w9WgXcQ 4y agoYou do understand it's not ChatGPT giving advice though right? ChatGPT's "life advice autocomplete engine" is basically digging somewhere into psychology manuals written by educated humans when it spits out responses.
- bottlepalm 4y agoWhat's the functional difference between a psychology manual imprinted on an AI neural network versus a biological one?
- scarmig 4y agoIt's no weirder to say "ChatGPT gave me advice" than it is "Google search gave me the link to Wikipedia" or "the sun gave me a tan." Regardless of the exact status of ChatGPT, why be on an ideological warpath to reject that inanimate things can be the subject of a statement?