4 ms·

I don't think the point being made here has anything to do with the current quality of the output. ChatGPT could be giving good or bad results, that's tangentia

I don't think the point being made here has anything to do with the current quality of the output. ChatGPT could be giving good or bad results, that's tangential. The debate here is about whether a system that is a parrot can be a good system. To parrot arguers claim that these system just regurgitate the training data set and give you the most plausible next word, and they claim that's bad/useless. The anti-parrot arguers claim that's basically how humans work too (even the smarter ones), and that just because ChatGPT is a "parrot" doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be as good or better than humans. It might not be entirely there yet, but it's just a matter of time it becomes a good enough parrot to be indistinguishable/better than humans.

mdp2021 4y ago
> whether a system that is a parrot can be a good system A parrot can be a good system if the problem is "Collect and sort the available data about X (and provide reference)". A parrot is a disaster if you ask it "What do you think of X": a parrot does not think - unless you make it reason, verify and criticize its ontology, and at that point it is useless that we call it a "parrot".
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "A parrot is a disaster if you ask it "What do you think of X"" Why need it be a disaster? If its answer is useful, why bother about whether the answer was the result of thought or some other process?
- ehsankia 4y ago
  > What do you think of X Most opinions you will hear from people are also just regurgitated amalgamation of things they have previously heard or read on the subject. Also, in general, being able to aggregate and summarize into words what hundreds of people thing about X seems like probably an even more useful tool than getting one person's thought, unless it's something no one has ever had any thought on before. Even then, I don't think it would be outside the scope of possibility for the parrot to find things that are similar to X, find opinions on those, and somehow transpose those opinions onto X.
nottorp 4y ago
> The anti-parrot arguers claim that's basically how humans work too (even the smarter ones), and that just because ChatGPT is a "parrot" doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be as good or better than humans. It might not be entirely there yet, but it's just a matter of time it becomes a good enough parrot to be indistinguishable/better than humans. Which humans? There may be a correlation between people who are capable of watching Netflix quality series for 4-5 seasons of more of the same and admirers of ChatGPT. Basically if "content" (as opposed to "art" or attempts at art) does not bother you, ChatGPT does a good enough job already. On the other hand, the most vocal opponents imagine themselves in a world where not 90% but 99.999% is blogspam and Netflix. Making entertainment worth watching impossible to find.

mdp2021 4y ago

> whether a system that is a parrot can be a good system A parrot can be a good system if the problem is "Collect and sort the available data about X (and provide reference)". A parrot is a disaster if you ask it "What do you think of X": a parrot does not think - unless you make it reason, verify and criticize its ontology, and at that point it is useless that we call it a "parrot".

pmoriarty 4y ago
"A parrot is a disaster if you ask it "What do you think of X"" Why need it be a disaster? If its answer is useful, why bother about whether the answer was the result of thought or some other process?
ehsankia 4y ago
> What do you think of X Most opinions you will hear from people are also just regurgitated amalgamation of things they have previously heard or read on the subject. Also, in general, being able to aggregate and summarize into words what hundreds of people thing about X seems like probably an even more useful tool than getting one person's thought, unless it's something no one has ever had any thought on before. Even then, I don't think it would be outside the scope of possibility for the parrot to find things that are similar to X, find opinions on those, and somehow transpose those opinions onto X.

nottorp 4y ago

> The anti-parrot arguers claim that's basically how humans work too (even the smarter ones), and that just because ChatGPT is a "parrot" doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be as good or better than humans. It might not be entirely there yet, but it's just a matter of time it becomes a good enough parrot to be indistinguishable/better than humans. Which humans? There may be a correlation between people who are capable of watching Netflix quality series for 4-5 seasons of more of the same and admirers of ChatGPT. Basically if "content" (as opposed to "art" or attempts at art) does not bother you, ChatGPT does a good enough job already. On the other hand, the most vocal opponents imagine themselves in a world where not 90% but 99.999% is blogspam and Netflix. Making entertainment worth watching impossible to find.