4 ms·
This is terrible. The idea of ChatGPT being able to fill in gaps of not knowing what you don’t know is appealing, but you need to actually know something about
by JackFr 4y ago
This is terrible. The idea of ChatGPT being able to fill in gaps of not knowing what you don’t know is appealing, but you need to actually know something about the topic to evaluate ChatGPTs ability.
This is just spewing pure nonsense, and the author thinks he has learned something from it.
- daveguy 4y agoThe worst part is the "p-values" it completely made up. Verification that the numbers were legitimate -- "What's a p-value." At least it got the values right .9912 (twice), .8813 (twice). It estimated 88-99% chance of bullshit... To 4 significant digits... Repeating the exact values. Turns out, this is an excellent example of how poor these models are with accurate knowledge vs confident bullshitting.
- capableweb 4y ago> but you need to actually know something about the topic to evaluate ChatGPTs ability. I don't necessarily think you have to, but you have to be ready to look up further, more trustworthy sources after your discussion with ChatGPT.
- waboremo 4y agoPeople already don't do that with our current tools, what makes anyone believe it will happen with ChatGPT? Especially when they now have to go back to their favorite search engine to find those sources and validate them. It's as if everyone has forgotten how humans behave, they don't even read or go to actual wikipedia sources that are properly laid out! Nevermind having to go find trustworthy sources.
- capableweb 4y agoI don't really care about how others use it. I myself find it enough useful and productive to use it, and what I wrote before is how I "protect" myself. As you say, people who don't check sources won't do so with or without GPT4.
- waboremo 4y agoMaybe you'll eventually care about how others use it when your trustworthy sources are flooded with irrelevant, outdated, and downright false information due to the constant generation of "kind of true" content.
- pixl97 4y agoI mean like it already currently is?
- non- 4y agoIt's useful to learn new tips and tricks. e.g. the GPT4 demo showed me how to get much better code output.
- web3-is-a-scam 4y agospoiler: the vast vast vast vast vast majority absolutely will not ever do that
- sosodev 4y agoDo you think that other sources are infallible? Almost every source is wrong sometimes. ChatGPT is as good as my professors were in college. They would regularly say things that were just completely incorrect but were knowledgeable and correct often enough to be helpful.
- JustBreath 4y agoOther sources are fallible as well, but also less likely to make big mistakes and more likely to cover the major pitfalls of a hobby/area of expertise by virtue of actual experience and understanding of the subject matter. (versus statistical probabilities in word choice) Also ChatGPT has no consistent internal sense of self and is highly sensitive to input. You can convince it that just about anything is true if you aren't careful about how you phrase your input.
- cs02rm0 4y agoReminds me of people being up in arms when Wikipedia turned up because anyone could contribute. Seems like the same thing is still happening.
- sosodev 4y agoIt is quite similar, isn't it? To say that a potentially flawed source of information is worthless is a silly extreme.
- Jensson 4y agoWikipedia works since the world is full of pedantic sticklers. If you remove the pedantic sticklers then wikipedia would no longer work, it would just be full of bias or bullshit, so we should be thankful for all the pedantic sticklers out there.
- geraneum 4y agoPilots make mistakes sometimes. I, the bike rider also make mistake sometimes. Therefore I can fly an airplane and I will be as good. Jokes aside, making mistakes is not a good common factor in order to evaluate if two different systems can be practically interchanged. You need more. What type of mistakes? In what situations, and how to mitigate them. This is a surprisingly common misunderstanding running wild here. You cannot even switch the places of two humans, even two professors in real life using this line of reasoning.
- yieldcrv 4y agothis morning I needed to populate an SQL database with dummy values, only a few dozen though so I told ChatGPT the model with types and asked it for random values in csv format. I’m sure the API could spit out far more if I used that I imported into the database and moved on. 30 seconds? mostly waiting for it to output maybe we should make a site where people share what they used LLMs for
- voidhorse 4y agoThis. If you've been following GPT at all you'd be crazy to try to use it to learn new things. It's very clear the output is not accurate, and prone to hallucination, and requires an already knowledgable user to judge its veracity and validity. I was worried something like this would happen. AI will usher in a dark age thanks to overfitting and convenience and naivety. It's going to be like the current info literacy crisis raised to the nth degree.
- adamredwoods 4y agoIt's also highly suggestible. If the input was interpreted wrongly, it can deviate from a set goal. Garbage in => garbage out. Example: >> If I'm feeling a little horse, where am I? >> If you're feeling a little horse, you might be experiencing a sore throat or hoarseness in your voice. This is a common symptom of many respiratory illnesses, such as the common cold, flu, or bronchitis, as well as other conditions that affect the throat and vocal cords, such as acid reflux, allergies, or overuse of the voice. It's important to stay hydrated and rest your voice if you're experiencing hoarseness, and to seek medical attention if your symptoms persist or worsen over time.
- grokgrok 4y agoTreated as an opportunity for criticism, it can be an effective learning tool, especially for developing your critical literacy. Think of it as a game where the point is to prove it wrong.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]