5 ms·

This article is really crap. It's trying to convince you that AI is "awesome" and that we are just banning it on the basis of lacking a Human-Stamp-Of-Approval

This article is really crap. It's trying to convince you that AI is "awesome" and that we are just banning it on the basis of lacking a Human-Stamp-Of-Approval (TM), but actually the sources are not saying that. The sources are saying that these ML models generate "questionable" work that at best some of it may pass a filter (erring on the side of caution), but overall it is either direct plagiarism or of "unconvincing" quality. E.g. , * Short fiction: "I’m not going to detail how I know these stories are 'AI' spam. There are some very obvious patterns [...] While rejecting and banning these submissions has been simple," * College essays: "I probably couldn’t detect the AI authorship, but that I also wouldn’t label the essays as convincing." "I found both essays to resemble cliché essays, with neither answering the prompt in a convincing way. They also didn’t sound like an essay a teenager would write [...]" "New York City schools cited 'negative impacts on student learning, and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content,'" "Word by word it was a well-written essay," he said, but on closer inspection, one claim about the prolific philosopher, David Hume "made no sense" and was "just flatly wrong." "Really well-written wrong was the biggest red flag," "while the grammar in AI-generated essays is almost perfect, the substance tends to lack detail" None of this seems to justify TFA's point that ML-generated stuff "it’s not bad — it’s just not human". ML-generated stuff _is_ bad. Most definitely not awesome. Maybe it will improve in the future.

chx 4y ago
> Maybe it will improve in the future. To be fair, I find this entertaining. Very entertaining. The early 80s, another wave of exciting AI happened (from Japanese and US government funding) but there was a question which shocked Douglas Lenat so badly he dedicated himself since then to build a system of basic facts, that being Cyc. The question is: if Susan goes shopping does her head go with her? ( sorry if I do not quote it word-by-word by correct, it's been over a quarter century when I had my exam on this topic :) ) You can generate any amount of such questions which a two year old human would have no trouble answering but no AI -- so far -- could possibly answer unless of course that question and answer already occurred in some text. ChatGPT was called a stochastic parrot and it's not that ChatGPT is that, the entire model can not possibly produce anything else. Reasoning doesn't enter into this picture. So, not only it will not improve in the future, it can not improve.
- sshine 4y ago
  > Reasoning doesn't enter into this picture. > So, not only it will not improve in the future, it can not improve. Clearly, with all of this AI pervading society, reasoning is a very little part of human communication.

chx 4y ago

> Maybe it will improve in the future. To be fair, I find this entertaining. Very entertaining. The early 80s, another wave of exciting AI happened (from Japanese and US government funding) but there was a question which shocked Douglas Lenat so badly he dedicated himself since then to build a system of basic facts, that being Cyc. The question is: if Susan goes shopping does her head go with her? ( sorry if I do not quote it word-by-word by correct, it's been over a quarter century when I had my exam on this topic :) ) You can generate any amount of such questions which a two year old human would have no trouble answering but no AI -- so far -- could possibly answer unless of course that question and answer already occurred in some text. ChatGPT was called a stochastic parrot and it's not that ChatGPT is that, the entire model can not possibly produce anything else. Reasoning doesn't enter into this picture. So, not only it will not improve in the future, it can not improve.

sshine 4y ago
> Reasoning doesn't enter into this picture. > So, not only it will not improve in the future, it can not improve. Clearly, with all of this AI pervading society, reasoning is a very little part of human communication.