6 ms·

Just for fun (and meta-analysis) I summarized this very long article using GPT-4: In this blog post, Stephen Wolfram explores the complex issue of AI potential

Just for fun (and meta-analysis) I summarized this very long article using GPT-4: In this blog post, Stephen Wolfram explores the complex issue of AI potentially taking over human jobs and its implications for human history. He argues that AI and automation have already begun changing the way we work, but this doesn't necessarily spell disaster. Instead, AI may lead to a new era of human creativity and collaboration. Wolfram discusses three main points: AI will change the job market but not eliminate it entirely. Jobs will shift from routine tasks to more creative, strategic, and collaborative roles. AI can augment human abilities, allowing us to focus on more high-level thinking and problem-solving. Society will need to adapt to these changes, redefining the concept of work and focusing on education that fosters creativity and adaptability. It's essential for governments, educators, and employers to come together and create the necessary infrastructure to support this transition. AI will not mark the end of human history, but rather the beginning of a new chapter. As we adapt to these changes, we will redefine our roles in society and collaborate more closely with AI. This will lead to new opportunities and potentially more fulfilling lives for many. In conclusion, Wolfram contends that AI is a powerful tool that can revolutionize the way we work and live. Rather than fearing its potential to displace jobs, we should embrace the opportunities it offers and work together to ensure a successful transition into a new era of human-AI collaboration.

analog31 4y ago
I'm not attacking you, since you're just bearing this message to us from Wolfram through GPT-4. Anybody could have written those paragraphs off the top of their heads, and it has been the conventional establishment wisdom about computer technology for as long as I can remember.
- pinewurst 4y ago
  Perhaps it’s just proof that, when you factor out Wolfram’s humble-and-not-brag, it leaves behind nothing of note.
  - siva7 4y ago
    That would also be a valid conclusion for literally any self-help or pop-psychology book.
    - throwaway71271 4y ago
      eat well and exercise
- bmmayer1 4y ago
  Yeah I debated posting this but thought it was an interesting meta-commentary on the usefulness (or relevance) of Wolfram's core points. For the record, I do not believe that Chat GPT is capable of abstract or critical thought.
js8 4y ago
Interesting. I used to think that having an article summarization tool, like GPT-4 (provided the above is done correctly), would be a really cool thing. But now I have some doubts. I am reading through Wolfram's article on LLMs, and I am enjoying it. However, if GPT-4 wrote a summary, it would probably just also said (or imply) that the main points of the article are pretty boring standard stuff. I would conclude it's not worth reading from the summary. So the summary doesn't really tell me whether it's worth a read or not. Even if those main points have been presented before, maybe Wolfram is making some new arguments, or interesting analogies, or just some good joke or observation. Taken to the extreme, AI could probably summarize many stories as "hero's journey". But that doesn't distinguish between a really well-written story and a really bad one.
- nothrowaways 4y ago
  The article on LLM has misconceptions
- ElFitz 4y ago
  That’s one of the issues with summaries. Not only are some written by writers who couldn’t write as well as the original author, but you also lose information, no matter what you do. Sometimes it’s just the form. Sometimes it’s fluff. But sometimes it’s actual information. And sometimes the form is (or is a part of) the point.
  - maegul 4y ago
    My simple take on this is that summaries are for consumption or extraction in pursuit of a task essentially extraneous to the source material. Reading the original (properly) is for participating in the discourse, which entails the potential of writing a response in essentially the same medium and so continuing the discourse. Unfortunately much of our education with its emphasis on assessment leans hard on extraction and habituates us the same way. Shallow and attention seeking content online hasn’t helped at all, obviously. With universities, I always found it confusing the cognitive dissonance evinced by the attempts at signalling the importance of discourse through seminars/tutorials and Socratic methods while pretending we all weren’t reading the assessment schemes on day 1. When you read and pay attention to the original source, the extra information you get are contextual clues, biases and emphases … essentially insights into the cognitive structure behind the piece and how it might play out at more general levels or in response to future conditions. You capture more of the “thinking”, not just “the thought”, and so can adapt, continue and extend it.
Gys 4y ago
Maybe we should not ask an AI to summarize an evaluation of the future of AIs for us humans ;)
the_other 4y ago
Thanks for sharing that. What I find interesting here is that the summary is essentially all the ideas I already had from reading HN and trying out ChatGPT twice. i.e. nothing new (new compared someone casually following the last few month's AI news). This seems similar to peoples' accounts of getting ChatGPT to generate boilerplate code for them. Such a summary may useful to people who're not following news regularly. Wolfram's article might provide useful detail, but I can't tell from reading the summary if it's worth me reading the article. So how is any of this useful (the summarisation, or Wolfram's article?) Assuming Wolfram is far ahead of the curve, did GPT miss the depth and nuance, because it's only been trained on data that ends at 2021? Is Wolfram too subtle in his thinking that it's impossible to summaries effectively? Or are both his article and the summary just different flavours of "now"? Are my expectations of AI power & creativity, and my expectations for constant change too much? Are we seeing AI's current limits, or its eventual limits?
jderick 4y ago
Maybe instead of a summary we should ask what the most interesting parts of the article are?

analog31 4y ago

I'm not attacking you, since you're just bearing this message to us from Wolfram through GPT-4. Anybody could have written those paragraphs off the top of their heads, and it has been the conventional establishment wisdom about computer technology for as long as I can remember.

pinewurst 4y ago
Perhaps it’s just proof that, when you factor out Wolfram’s humble-and-not-brag, it leaves behind nothing of note.
- siva7 4y ago
  That would also be a valid conclusion for literally any self-help or pop-psychology book.
  - throwaway71271 4y ago
    eat well and exercise
bmmayer1 4y ago
Yeah I debated posting this but thought it was an interesting meta-commentary on the usefulness (or relevance) of Wolfram's core points. For the record, I do not believe that Chat GPT is capable of abstract or critical thought.

js8 4y ago

Interesting. I used to think that having an article summarization tool, like GPT-4 (provided the above is done correctly), would be a really cool thing. But now I have some doubts. I am reading through Wolfram's article on LLMs, and I am enjoying it. However, if GPT-4 wrote a summary, it would probably just also said (or imply) that the main points of the article are pretty boring standard stuff. I would conclude it's not worth reading from the summary. So the summary doesn't really tell me whether it's worth a read or not. Even if those main points have been presented before, maybe Wolfram is making some new arguments, or interesting analogies, or just some good joke or observation. Taken to the extreme, AI could probably summarize many stories as "hero's journey". But that doesn't distinguish between a really well-written story and a really bad one.

nothrowaways 4y ago
The article on LLM has misconceptions
ElFitz 4y ago
That’s one of the issues with summaries. Not only are some written by writers who couldn’t write as well as the original author, but you also lose information, no matter what you do. Sometimes it’s just the form. Sometimes it’s fluff. But sometimes it’s actual information. And sometimes the form is (or is a part of) the point.
- maegul 4y ago
  My simple take on this is that summaries are for consumption or extraction in pursuit of a task essentially extraneous to the source material. Reading the original (properly) is for participating in the discourse, which entails the potential of writing a response in essentially the same medium and so continuing the discourse. Unfortunately much of our education with its emphasis on assessment leans hard on extraction and habituates us the same way. Shallow and attention seeking content online hasn’t helped at all, obviously. With universities, I always found it confusing the cognitive dissonance evinced by the attempts at signalling the importance of discourse through seminars/tutorials and Socratic methods while pretending we all weren’t reading the assessment schemes on day 1. When you read and pay attention to the original source, the extra information you get are contextual clues, biases and emphases … essentially insights into the cognitive structure behind the piece and how it might play out at more general levels or in response to future conditions. You capture more of the “thinking”, not just “the thought”, and so can adapt, continue and extend it.

Gys 4y ago

Maybe we should not ask an AI to summarize an evaluation of the future of AIs for us humans ;)

the_other 4y ago

Thanks for sharing that. What I find interesting here is that the summary is essentially all the ideas I already had from reading HN and trying out ChatGPT twice. i.e. nothing new (new compared someone casually following the last few month's AI news). This seems similar to peoples' accounts of getting ChatGPT to generate boilerplate code for them. Such a summary may useful to people who're not following news regularly. Wolfram's article might provide useful detail, but I can't tell from reading the summary if it's worth me reading the article. So how is any of this useful (the summarisation, or Wolfram's article?) Assuming Wolfram is far ahead of the curve, did GPT miss the depth and nuance, because it's only been trained on data that ends at 2021? Is Wolfram too subtle in his thinking that it's impossible to summaries effectively? Or are both his article and the summary just different flavours of "now"? Are my expectations of AI power & creativity, and my expectations for constant change too much? Are we seeing AI's current limits, or its eventual limits?

jderick 4y ago

Maybe instead of a summary we should ask what the most interesting parts of the article are?