7 ms·

At least that's relatively innocuous. I asked it how to identify a species of edible mushroom, and it gave me some of the characteristics from its deadly look a

At least that's relatively innocuous. I asked it how to identify a species of edible mushroom, and it gave me some of the characteristics from its deadly look alike.

theK 4y ago
I'd say the critical question here would be whether these characteristics can also be found on the edible mushroom or if it wanted to outright poison you :-D
- Alex3917 4y ago
  > I'd say the critical question here would be whether these characteristics can also be found on the edible mushroom That's a non-trivial question to answer because mushrooms from the same species can look very different based on the environmental conditions. But in this case it was giving me identifying characteristics that are not typical for the mushroom in question, but rather are typical for the deadly Galerina, likely because they are frequently mentioned together. (Since, you know, it's important to know what the deadly look alikes are for any given mushroom.)
skissane 4y ago
I asked OpenAI’s ChatGPT some technical questions about Australian drug laws, like what schedule common ADHD medications were on - and it answered them correctly. Then I asked it the same question about LSD - and it told me that LSD was a completely legal drug in Australia - which is 100% wrong. Sooner or later, someone’s going to try that as a defence - “but your honour, ChatGPT told me it was legal…”
- Spivak 4y ago
  Y’all are using this tool very wrong and in a way that none of the AI integrated search engines will. You assume the AI doesn’t know anything about the query, provide it the knowledge from the search index and ask it to synthesize it. That seed data is where the citations come from.
  - skissane 4y ago
    There’s still the risk that if the search results it is given don’t contain the answer to the exact question you asked it, that it will hallucinate the answer.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      10,000% true which is why AI can't replace a search engine, only compliment it. If you can't surface the documents that contain the answer then you'll only get garbage.
      - skissane 4y ago
        Maybe we need an algorithm like this: 1. Search databases for documents relevant to query 2. Hand them to AI#1 which generates an answer based on the text of those documents and its background knowledge 3. Give both documents and answer to AI#2 which evaluates whether documents support answer 4. If “yes”, return answer to user. If “no”, go back to step 2 and try again Each AI would be trained appropriately to perform its specialised task
        batch12 4y ago
        I've been working on something like this for fun. I know its not grownbreakimg, but it's an interesting problem.
        vidarh 4y ago
        A GAN approach to penalising a generator for generating something that is not supported by it's available data would be interesting (and I'm sure some have tried it already, I'm not following the field closely), but for many subjects creating training sets would be immensely hard (for some subjects you certainly could produce large synthetic training sets)
  - timdavila 4y ago
    You're holding it wrong!
wpietri 4y ago
To be fair, it's not like the look-alike is deadly to the AI.
sllabres 4y ago
I'll would currently use it as it has been named: ChatGPT Would you trust some stranger in a chat on serious topics without questioning critically? Some probably would, I not.
- aworks 4y ago
  I think this is right. The chats I've had with it are more thoughtful, comprehensive and modest than any conversation I've had on the Internet with people I don't know, starting from the usenet days. And I respect it more than the naive chats I've had with say Xfinity over the years. Still requires judgement, sophistication and refinement to get to a reasonable conclusion.
nearbuy 4y ago
If someone is using ChatGPT to determine which mushrooms are deadly and which are edible, they may not be cut out for living.

At least that's relatively innocuous. I asked it how to identify a species of edible mushroom, and it gave me some of the characteristics from its deadly look alike.

theK 4y ago

I'd say the critical question here would be whether these characteristics can also be found on the edible mushroom or if it wanted to outright poison you :-D

Alex3917 4y ago
> I'd say the critical question here would be whether these characteristics can also be found on the edible mushroom That's a non-trivial question to answer because mushrooms from the same species can look very different based on the environmental conditions. But in this case it was giving me identifying characteristics that are not typical for the mushroom in question, but rather are typical for the deadly Galerina, likely because they are frequently mentioned together. (Since, you know, it's important to know what the deadly look alikes are for any given mushroom.)

skissane 4y ago

I asked OpenAI’s ChatGPT some technical questions about Australian drug laws, like what schedule common ADHD medications were on - and it answered them correctly. Then I asked it the same question about LSD - and it told me that LSD was a completely legal drug in Australia - which is 100% wrong. Sooner or later, someone’s going to try that as a defence - “but your honour, ChatGPT told me it was legal…”

Spivak 4y ago
Y’all are using this tool very wrong and in a way that none of the AI integrated search engines will. You assume the AI doesn’t know anything about the query, provide it the knowledge from the search index and ask it to synthesize it. That seed data is where the citations come from.
- skissane 4y ago
  There’s still the risk that if the search results it is given don’t contain the answer to the exact question you asked it, that it will hallucinate the answer.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    10,000% true which is why AI can't replace a search engine, only compliment it. If you can't surface the documents that contain the answer then you'll only get garbage.
    - skissane 4y ago
      Maybe we need an algorithm like this: 1. Search databases for documents relevant to query 2. Hand them to AI#1 which generates an answer based on the text of those documents and its background knowledge 3. Give both documents and answer to AI#2 which evaluates whether documents support answer 4. If “yes”, return answer to user. If “no”, go back to step 2 and try again Each AI would be trained appropriately to perform its specialised task
      - batch12 4y ago
        I've been working on something like this for fun. I know its not grownbreakimg, but it's an interesting problem.
      - vidarh 4y ago
        A GAN approach to penalising a generator for generating something that is not supported by it's available data would be interesting (and I'm sure some have tried it already, I'm not following the field closely), but for many subjects creating training sets would be immensely hard (for some subjects you certainly could produce large synthetic training sets)
- timdavila 4y ago
  You're holding it wrong!

wpietri 4y ago

To be fair, it's not like the look-alike is deadly to the AI.

sllabres 4y ago

I'll would currently use it as it has been named: ChatGPT Would you trust some stranger in a chat on serious topics without questioning critically? Some probably would, I not.

aworks 4y ago
I think this is right. The chats I've had with it are more thoughtful, comprehensive and modest than any conversation I've had on the Internet with people I don't know, starting from the usenet days. And I respect it more than the naive chats I've had with say Xfinity over the years. Still requires judgement, sophistication and refinement to get to a reasonable conclusion.

nearbuy 4y ago

If someone is using ChatGPT to determine which mushrooms are deadly and which are edible, they may not be cut out for living.