4 ms·

Almost everything I know about Chernobyl came from a TV series I watched. How much of that series is a faithful representation of reality? I've not done any res

by krona 4y ago

Almost everything I know about Chernobyl came from a TV series I watched. How much of that series is a faithful representation of reality? I've not done any research myself. Could I trust what is on Wikipedia when half of the references are in books I'll never read? I could go to Ukraine but the reactor is sealed off, and I don't speak Russian. My point is, ChatGPT is just another step in a process which has been going on for decades. The simulation of reality it creates is just another step removed from what we're used to, but what we've become accustomed to wasn't reality anyway, even if it seems like a faithful copy of it. "The map is not the territory."

user_named 4y ago
A tv series is storytelling it is not a simulation of reality
- castrodd 4y ago
  Ah, but isn’t it? All storytelling is a simulation of reality. This is something all great artists have explored. Where does art end and reality begin? It is not a solid line.
- krona 4y ago
  I can give you hundreds of TikTok videos of young adults struggling to tell the difference.
  - smt88 4y ago
    Please share three. It must be clear that they're unable to differentiate between a TV show and reality, and also that they're not joking.
vlunkr 4y ago
You may not read the books or travel to Russia, but someone else already has. ChatGPT will just generate lies, there’s quite a significant difference.
- krona 4y ago
  > ChatGPT will just generate lies, there’s quite a significant difference. Lies have existed since the dawn of civilization, so the difference doesn't seem significant, at all.
  - smt88 4y ago
    > Lies have existed since the dawn of civilization, so the difference doesn't seem significant, at all. Russia and other authoritarian regimes currently employee thousands of people around the world to produce realistic lies on the internet. This is not an insignificant expense. With a tool like ChatGPT, they could scale this to seem like millions of people instead of just thousands. The web could be 99% bots and most of its users would have a hard time telling. The near-term effect is that sites like reddit and HN are going to get a lot worse in terms of quality content.
geraneum 4y ago
If you want to research what happened in Chernobyl from an experts point of view, you should look into sources with scientific credibility and proof (based on chemistry, math and physics). ChatGPT can, in your example, play the role of a writer and may even be good at it someday. But that’s on brand for ChatGPT as a language model. Could be immensely useful. So far so good! But it starts to get funny from here. Where some people conflate the LLM with what it’s not. An agent with “Human Level Artificial Intelligence”.
dghlsakjg 4y ago
You are very well aware that a tv show takes liberties, and most people expect that “based on a true story” leans more on “story” than “true”. The problem is that chatgpt will lie to your face and tell you it isn’t lying.
- gremlinsinc 4y ago
  > The problem is that chatgpt will lie to your face and tell you it isn’t lying. So will the news media and I mean all from the right-wing drivel at Fox/Newsmax to MSNBC, and CNN. Tucker Carlson actually won a lawsuit regarding this because it was deemed that he was quote: 'an entertainer' NOT a 'news person'. So, basically an actor playing a news caster, and a large swath of society cannot see the difference. MSNBC, would say anything to make Bernie look bad so he'd drop down in polls, CNN as well. If you ask any of these people point blank to list the lies they've told on camera, under oath, you'd get a lot of '5ths'. Hell, I mostly get my news from just headlines on reddit/hn simply because reading past the headline usually leads to a lot of opinions, and biases. If I want opinions/biases, I'd rather read comments from people who DID read the article, as they're usually way more informed on the subject than the actual author.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  We're using the wrong language to describe what ChatGPT does. It can't lie to you because lying requires intent to deceive, and the software has no intent. The software does one thing: It generates text based on a prompt. All this other stuff that's being layered atop it, including filters to add political bias and filters to catch some derogatory speech, are after it does its thing, or before it's allowed to digest the prompt. Even without those fingers on the scale for good or ill, all ChatGPT can do is generate text from the prompt. It doesn't "know" things. It cannot process meaning. It can only produce likely text given its training text. The problem is in our anthropomorphizing the tool. It is a tool, and people who regularly use tools know their limitations and appropriate applications. We're making the tool available to a general public that has no idea what the limitations are. The public is told this is "AI" (it isn't), and they're thinking C3PO not automated MadLibs. The real thing this is going to do is drastically increase the noise, drowning out signal in our day to day lives. Nothing will be trustworthy information, because all of it will get washed through these generators.

by krona 4y ago

user_named 4y ago

A tv series is storytelling it is not a simulation of reality

castrodd 4y ago
Ah, but isn’t it? All storytelling is a simulation of reality. This is something all great artists have explored. Where does art end and reality begin? It is not a solid line.
krona 4y ago
I can give you hundreds of TikTok videos of young adults struggling to tell the difference.
- smt88 4y ago
  Please share three. It must be clear that they're unable to differentiate between a TV show and reality, and also that they're not joking.

vlunkr 4y ago

You may not read the books or travel to Russia, but someone else already has. ChatGPT will just generate lies, there’s quite a significant difference.

krona 4y ago
> ChatGPT will just generate lies, there’s quite a significant difference. Lies have existed since the dawn of civilization, so the difference doesn't seem significant, at all.
- smt88 4y ago
  > Lies have existed since the dawn of civilization, so the difference doesn't seem significant, at all. Russia and other authoritarian regimes currently employee thousands of people around the world to produce realistic lies on the internet. This is not an insignificant expense. With a tool like ChatGPT, they could scale this to seem like millions of people instead of just thousands. The web could be 99% bots and most of its users would have a hard time telling. The near-term effect is that sites like reddit and HN are going to get a lot worse in terms of quality content.

geraneum 4y ago

If you want to research what happened in Chernobyl from an experts point of view, you should look into sources with scientific credibility and proof (based on chemistry, math and physics). ChatGPT can, in your example, play the role of a writer and may even be good at it someday. But that’s on brand for ChatGPT as a language model. Could be immensely useful. So far so good! But it starts to get funny from here. Where some people conflate the LLM with what it’s not. An agent with “Human Level Artificial Intelligence”.

dghlsakjg 4y ago

You are very well aware that a tv show takes liberties, and most people expect that “based on a true story” leans more on “story” than “true”. The problem is that chatgpt will lie to your face and tell you it isn’t lying.

gremlinsinc 4y ago
> The problem is that chatgpt will lie to your face and tell you it isn’t lying. So will the news media and I mean all from the right-wing drivel at Fox/Newsmax to MSNBC, and CNN. Tucker Carlson actually won a lawsuit regarding this because it was deemed that he was quote: 'an entertainer' NOT a 'news person'. So, basically an actor playing a news caster, and a large swath of society cannot see the difference. MSNBC, would say anything to make Bernie look bad so he'd drop down in polls, CNN as well. If you ask any of these people point blank to list the lies they've told on camera, under oath, you'd get a lot of '5ths'. Hell, I mostly get my news from just headlines on reddit/hn simply because reading past the headline usually leads to a lot of opinions, and biases. If I want opinions/biases, I'd rather read comments from people who DID read the article, as they're usually way more informed on the subject than the actual author.
slowmovintarget 4y ago
We're using the wrong language to describe what ChatGPT does. It can't lie to you because lying requires intent to deceive, and the software has no intent. The software does one thing: It generates text based on a prompt. All this other stuff that's being layered atop it, including filters to add political bias and filters to catch some derogatory speech, are after it does its thing, or before it's allowed to digest the prompt. Even without those fingers on the scale for good or ill, all ChatGPT can do is generate text from the prompt. It doesn't "know" things. It cannot process meaning. It can only produce likely text given its training text. The problem is in our anthropomorphizing the tool. It is a tool, and people who regularly use tools know their limitations and appropriate applications. We're making the tool available to a general public that has no idea what the limitations are. The public is told this is "AI" (it isn't), and they're thinking C3PO not automated MadLibs. The real thing this is going to do is drastically increase the noise, drowning out signal in our day to day lives. Nothing will be trustworthy information, because all of it will get washed through these generators.