5 ms·
>but there's still no evidence that the sources are real Sounds like it's successfully approximating a human (I wish I was joking). The current "state of the
by dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>but there's still no evidence that the sources are real
Sounds like it's successfully approximating a human (I wish I was joking).
The current "state of the art" for human commenters who are acting in bad faith is to google their position and cite articles and papers that don't even support their claims knowing full well that people will have to waste time reading your BS sources to disprove you and that even if they do you've still one because you've got them to stop arguing against your position and instead argue against your sources. These miscreants are often successful in using their false appeals to authority to convert people to their side.
Of course ChatGPT doesn't know what "bad faith" is but regardless it's almost performing on their level.
We are marching toward a world where dishonest spinsters and BSers pretending to be experts are going to be replaced with bots.
- slowmovintarget 4y agoA massive increase in noise to a fragile information propagation system society has come to rely on (mostly for ill, it seems). What could go wrong? Add that to the context of so many existential issues we need clear communication on (freedoms, the global economy, reformation of society, climate change, Putin and Jinping's last gasps for "legacy"). All the while dodging machine generated hallucinations of off-by-that-much pronouncements on the world around us. We have a perfect storm brewing.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Of course ChatGPT doesn't know what "bad faith" is but regardless it's almost performing on their level. Its trained largely on the public internet. That it reproduces bad faith argument naturally and fluently should not be surprising.