3 ms·

> And surely they have no mind like us. I agree with this, it's the old "are submarines swimming" kind of question, semantics and not substance, i.e. irrelevan

by qsort 4y ago

> And surely they have no mind like us. I agree with this, it's the old "are submarines swimming" kind of question, semantics and not substance, i.e. irrelevant. However this is an article written by someone non-technical for other non-technical people, and this (emphasis is the author's) is perfectly on-point: > The tricky part is that ChatGPT and chatbots like it are designed to make use of a very influential human cognitive bias that we all have: the tendency to view things which are not people as people or at least as being like people. Which is absolutely a problem. Whether or not you ascribe a "mind" to it, laypeople absolutely need to understand that it's not a human they're talking to. > Is it useful? A better question is useful to whom and useful how. As a search engine it's pretty miserable for instance, as we found out. I'd like to leave myself some wiggle room because it's way too early to tell, but my hunch is that operating on natural language is a profound limitation that will make it far less useful than it is generally believed.

collaborative 4y ago
I have consistently been helped by ChatGPT every time Google has failed me. As a search engine it's really good. Only failing is re new data
visarga 4y ago
> laypeople absolutely need to understand that it's not a human they're talking to That's hard when the bot either gets angry at you or declares its love if you spend an hour with it. But is anthropomorphising AIs useful? that's the important question. I think it is useful. If you tell GPT3 it is a respected scientist, it will have higher accuracy solving tasks.
- qsort 4y ago
  > But is anthropomorphising AIs useful? No it isn't. It's disastrous. The bot declares your love for you if you spend an hour with it because it's trained on incel shit from reddit, thinking anything else is 100% a user problem. > If you tell GPT3 it is a respected scientist, it will have higher accuracy solving tasks. Even taking that statement at face value, what I think about AI has no bearing on what it does. You are giving input tokens to a machine and you are fooling yourself if you think of it as anything but. This is exactly the problem about natural language I'm pointing out. I don't want a friend, a coworker or an assistant, I want a mechanical slave to instruct in very specific ways, and natural language is a pretty lousy way to give orders.

by qsort 4y ago

collaborative 4y ago

I have consistently been helped by ChatGPT every time Google has failed me. As a search engine it's really good. Only failing is re new data

visarga 4y ago

> laypeople absolutely need to understand that it's not a human they're talking to That's hard when the bot either gets angry at you or declares its love if you spend an hour with it. But is anthropomorphising AIs useful? that's the important question. I think it is useful. If you tell GPT3 it is a respected scientist, it will have higher accuracy solving tasks.

qsort 4y ago
> But is anthropomorphising AIs useful? No it isn't. It's disastrous. The bot declares your love for you if you spend an hour with it because it's trained on incel shit from reddit, thinking anything else is 100% a user problem. > If you tell GPT3 it is a respected scientist, it will have higher accuracy solving tasks. Even taking that statement at face value, what I think about AI has no bearing on what it does. You are giving input tokens to a machine and you are fooling yourself if you think of it as anything but. This is exactly the problem about natural language I'm pointing out. I don't want a friend, a coworker or an assistant, I want a mechanical slave to instruct in very specific ways, and natural language is a pretty lousy way to give orders.