3 ms·

I think the latest iteration of Bing AI is better. More accurate, more firm to avoid the persuasion issues with ChatGPT, is current with the web rather than a c

by jug 4y ago

I think the latest iteration of Bing AI is better. More accurate, more firm to avoid the persuasion issues with ChatGPT, is current with the web rather than a cutoff date two years ago, and of course most importantly it provides sources like an interactive Wikipedia. As an example, if I try to convince Bing with something wrong, it not only explains why that’s incorrect, it also explains why it claims what it did. It has also correctly forgiven itself when it has indeed been wrong. In one case it was about a fact based on some website, I corrected it, and it realized how this regulation had changed a few years ago due to some source it had missed (which it of course now linked to). This is way ahead of the ChatGPT situation. It’s already rather primitive. ChatGPT says it’s wrong about everything if you push it. Bing gets annoyed and upset if you do and it can’t find a source where the claim is supported or if you can’t link to one. Still, sometimes the old LLM issues rear their ugly head there too. But it has made me wonder if accuracy and firmness is an emergent property. That’s an example of an unknown factor today (?) which would wildly affect articles like these and how much of a problem this is, in case these issues will simply fade away. And even with current level of mistakes at Bing, I think it’s now roughly human level of them. We aren’t perfect either. Why would this be expected of an AI? Because of the AI in the Alien film? Cultural preconceptions? I also frequently get the feeling we judge AI of today despite it being in its infancy. It’s almost like judging pre-schoolers for not acting like adult humans. That they are still not there, does not imply they are not going to be. We are only getting started. What does the author think would happen to research if we killed ChatGPT and called our first major generic product malevolent? First of all, malevolence implies intent. Is there even intent? A wish to do evil to others. Is this author even using the right words?

ChatGTP 4y ago
We aren’t perfect either. Why would this be expected of an AI? Because of the AI in the Alien film? Cultural preconceptions? This is a really interesting question I ask myself too, why do we expect perfection if the original knowledge base and is built on in perfect data, and the bot is fed spam?
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
>We aren’t perfect either. Why would this be expected of an AI? When a human errs and causes negative consequences, a human is punished. When an algorithm does the same thing, either nobody is punished or a human is punished. If we're going to elevate code above humanity, maybe it should be held to a higher standard. After all, it's supposed to be better, faster, more objective, and cheaper than us. Demanding more is literally the point. So demand perfection.

by jug 4y ago

ChatGTP 4y ago

We aren’t perfect either. Why would this be expected of an AI? Because of the AI in the Alien film? Cultural preconceptions? This is a really interesting question I ask myself too, why do we expect perfection if the original knowledge base and is built on in perfect data, and the bot is fed spam?

CatWChainsaw 4y ago

>We aren’t perfect either. Why would this be expected of an AI? When a human errs and causes negative consequences, a human is punished. When an algorithm does the same thing, either nobody is punished or a human is punished. If we're going to elevate code above humanity, maybe it should be held to a higher standard. After all, it's supposed to be better, faster, more objective, and cheaper than us. Demanding more is literally the point. So demand perfection.