4 ms·

This response is exactly my point. It's a bunch of word salad either saying nothing, repeating what I said, and/or using poor reasoning to make vapid arguments.

This response is exactly my point. It's a bunch of word salad either saying nothing, repeating what I said, and/or using poor reasoning to make vapid arguments. This is probably helpful to someone, presumably someone with a great need for an automated bullshit generator, but it isn't helpful to me. > I mean, think about all the time they can save us by handling repetitive tasks, like customer service or even generating news articles. Something robots already do and people already hate them for it[0]. I doubt anyone will empower the robot to do anything meaningful, so while it can shape a word salad with a high degree of sounding like a human being, it only sounds like a useless human being (for the thing I care about). I'd be better off looking at whatever data it has that it is supposed to be using to help me. > People make mistakes too, y'know? So let's use these models as tools to help us, instead of trying to replace us completely. I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes on my own, thanks. And as anyone who's ever had to train anyone can tell you, looking over someone else's work constantly doesn't exactly help you get anything done. Give me a GPT I can train myself to eventual competency and maybe it'll pay dividends, but that doesn't realistically exist today. [0] And of course another application is to use another GPT instance to summarize the bullshit news articles that were themselves generated from a summary, or interact with the usless customer service chatbot, thereby closing the cycle of waste that has become the cornerstone of modern civilization.

monkeynotes 4y ago
> It's a bunch of word salad either saying nothing This is demonstrably not true. It's saying quite a bit, yes it's rather PR-speak like, but that's how it's been trained. > And as anyone who's ever had to train anyone can tell you, looking over someone else's work constantly doesn't exactly help you get anything done WTF? I think the way you are thinking about this seems fundamentally bogged down by cynicism. Proof reading an article written for you is far, far speedier than writing it yourself. That's why newspaper editors a) edit, b) get someone to write for them to edit. I can review a PR far more quickly than writing the code. > I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes on my own, thanks But now I don't need to pay you to make mistakes, GPT will make them instead and whoever was checking on your mistakes is still useful. > Give me a GPT I can train myself to eventual competency and maybe it'll pay dividends, but that doesn't realistically exist today. And GPT didn't exist in the wild last year. You have just admitted this is WIP, and I see no reason not to expect progress will continue. Maybe one day we'll all have personally trained AI models that live through our whole lives with us. They'll be able to give personal life advice, around to bounce ideas off of, help you remember everything. I mean it's trivial to find revolutionary use cases for this tech. The only question is "is it possible or is there a hard wall in front of us?" I am yet to be convinced there is anything standing in the way and billions of dollars is backing that up right now. Honestly GPT here has more insight than you do, I think that's miraculous.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  > This is demonstrably not true. It's saying quite a bit, yes it's rather PR-speak like, but that's how it's been trained. It has used many words, it has said very little, none of it useful or insightful. If you see something insightful in there, I must chalk it up to very different perception of reality. > WTF? I think the way you are thinking about this seems fundamentally bogged down by cynicism. Proof reading an article written for you is far, far speedier than writing it yourself. Not if you keep screwing it up. Not if I can't ever trust that you even tried to source correct information. Not if your creative output is trite at best. > You have just admitted this is WIP, and I see no reason not to expect progress will continue. I clearly said several times that I expect the technology will get better.

monkeynotes 4y ago

> It's a bunch of word salad either saying nothing This is demonstrably not true. It's saying quite a bit, yes it's rather PR-speak like, but that's how it's been trained. > And as anyone who's ever had to train anyone can tell you, looking over someone else's work constantly doesn't exactly help you get anything done WTF? I think the way you are thinking about this seems fundamentally bogged down by cynicism. Proof reading an article written for you is far, far speedier than writing it yourself. That's why newspaper editors a) edit, b) get someone to write for them to edit. I can review a PR far more quickly than writing the code. > I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes on my own, thanks But now I don't need to pay you to make mistakes, GPT will make them instead and whoever was checking on your mistakes is still useful. > Give me a GPT I can train myself to eventual competency and maybe it'll pay dividends, but that doesn't realistically exist today. And GPT didn't exist in the wild last year. You have just admitted this is WIP, and I see no reason not to expect progress will continue. Maybe one day we'll all have personally trained AI models that live through our whole lives with us. They'll be able to give personal life advice, around to bounce ideas off of, help you remember everything. I mean it's trivial to find revolutionary use cases for this tech. The only question is "is it possible or is there a hard wall in front of us?" I am yet to be convinced there is anything standing in the way and billions of dollars is backing that up right now. Honestly GPT here has more insight than you do, I think that's miraculous.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
> This is demonstrably not true. It's saying quite a bit, yes it's rather PR-speak like, but that's how it's been trained. It has used many words, it has said very little, none of it useful or insightful. If you see something insightful in there, I must chalk it up to very different perception of reality. > WTF? I think the way you are thinking about this seems fundamentally bogged down by cynicism. Proof reading an article written for you is far, far speedier than writing it yourself. Not if you keep screwing it up. Not if I can't ever trust that you even tried to source correct information. Not if your creative output is trite at best. > You have just admitted this is WIP, and I see no reason not to expect progress will continue. I clearly said several times that I expect the technology will get better.