6 ms·

If there is a job that requires generating bullsh*t, then definitely it is at risk. Otherwise, no.

skitout 4y ago
I started a project where a guide with art history background was writing the content... no we use GPT4 for 80% of it. A lot of job are at risk. Most of them no because of full automation, but because less people will be required because of productivity increases "thanks to" AI. And many more job will become boring. The problem is this productivity gain will hurt a lot of people, and there are probably/possibly only a small minority of people that will fully benefit from it
- grumpyprole 4y ago
  You will have to proof read anything it writes and you should also fact check it, otherwise you are taking a risk. However, this is very difficult to do if GPT4 is unable to provide references or citations, or any provenance at all. The human with the art history background at least has some credentials, whereby the output can be trusted, to some degree and explained if necessary.
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    If you have a model that can read text and extract its meaning; and a model that can generate text, the work required to create a model that can generate text and then query for other texts that support its claims is not very hard. This is, imo, such an obviously near term capability that its not worth bringing up as a limitation.
    - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
      > If you have a model that can read text and extract its meaning That model doesn't exist. We have models that can read text and then probabilistically create a summary that's the most likely to match the original. But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe. What you're describing is basically a world model, and while there's a few folks claiming these LLMs are showing the glimmers of building world models, it's mostly speculation.
      - fauxpause_ 4y ago
        Oh please. If you can produce a summary of content, you’ve captured the meaning. I asked 3.5 to do it for you. > The paragraph that explains that models cannot be used for fact checking is: > "But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe." It’s not hard to imagine a very simple tool to try and find citations for claims. Or perhaps, derive claims from a source with citations.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- rideontime 4y ago
  Are you disclosing to your users/customers?
- Iwan-Zotow 4y ago
  question is who is going to consume this product? If i know for sure it is 100% GPT-X generated bs, do you think I'll read it?
rcarr 4y ago
I’m not sure I’d consider illustrator and artist jobs to be “generating bullshit” and I’d say at least 90% of them are probably going to be eliminated. You can probably add some other non-bullshit media jobs like audio mastering and video colouring to the list.
- grumpyprole 4y ago
  I think your 90% number is significantly over-estimating. Most creative people are actually quite creative and not just recycling.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    Are you actually joking? I think you should go have a look at Midjourney v5 and have a read through some Reddits in the art community where people are already losing their jobs.
    - grumpyprole 4y ago
      Is that where your 90% estimate comes from? Browsing Reddit? You are the one with the extraordinary claim (and it therefore requires extraordinary evidence).
      - rcarr 4y ago
        Well you’ve got financial analyst firms left right and center coming out with big numbers like this that have far more access to resources and data than I ever will. But you could just use your common sense. Most illustrators and artists make their money doing commissions for businesses. Most businesses will opt for the cheapest solution that meets the quality standard they’re after. The quality standard has already been met and it is far cheaper and faster than hiring an illustrator. So tell me how are all these illustrators and artists going to carry on making a living producing art if they’re priced out of the market?
        grumpyprole 4y ago
Iwan-Zotow 4y ago
Who then would be reading this BS? I believe GPT-X will generate tons of ... something ... How you would force people to READ IT ? If you know your incoming info is 90% BS, not a guess, not a thought, just knowledge that this is all auto-generated by some multiCPU entity - why would you read it? What are going to gain or to learn?
- hooverd 4y ago
  They'll summarize it using the same GPT-X.

I started a project where a guide with art history background was writing the content... no we use GPT4 for 80% of it. A lot of job are at risk. Most of them no because of full automation, but because less people will be required because of productivity increases "thanks to" AI. And many more job will become boring. The problem is this productivity gain will hurt a lot of people, and there are probably/possibly only a small minority of people that will fully benefit from it

grumpyprole 4y ago
You will have to proof read anything it writes and you should also fact check it, otherwise you are taking a risk. However, this is very difficult to do if GPT4 is unable to provide references or citations, or any provenance at all. The human with the art history background at least has some credentials, whereby the output can be trusted, to some degree and explained if necessary.
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  If you have a model that can read text and extract its meaning; and a model that can generate text, the work required to create a model that can generate text and then query for other texts that support its claims is not very hard. This is, imo, such an obviously near term capability that its not worth bringing up as a limitation.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    > If you have a model that can read text and extract its meaning That model doesn't exist. We have models that can read text and then probabilistically create a summary that's the most likely to match the original. But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe. What you're describing is basically a world model, and while there's a few folks claiming these LLMs are showing the glimmers of building world models, it's mostly speculation.
    - fauxpause_ 4y ago
      Oh please. If you can produce a summary of content, you’ve captured the meaning. I asked 3.5 to do it for you. > The paragraph that explains that models cannot be used for fact checking is: > "But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe." It’s not hard to imagine a very simple tool to try and find citations for claims. Or perhaps, derive claims from a source with citations.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
rideontime 4y ago
Are you disclosing to your users/customers?
Iwan-Zotow 4y ago
question is who is going to consume this product? If i know for sure it is 100% GPT-X generated bs, do you think I'll read it?

rcarr 4y ago

I’m not sure I’d consider illustrator and artist jobs to be “generating bullshit” and I’d say at least 90% of them are probably going to be eliminated. You can probably add some other non-bullshit media jobs like audio mastering and video colouring to the list.

grumpyprole 4y ago
I think your 90% number is significantly over-estimating. Most creative people are actually quite creative and not just recycling.
- rcarr 4y ago
  Are you actually joking? I think you should go have a look at Midjourney v5 and have a read through some Reddits in the art community where people are already losing their jobs.
  - grumpyprole 4y ago
    Is that where your 90% estimate comes from? Browsing Reddit? You are the one with the extraordinary claim (and it therefore requires extraordinary evidence).
    - rcarr 4y ago
      Well you’ve got financial analyst firms left right and center coming out with big numbers like this that have far more access to resources and data than I ever will. But you could just use your common sense. Most illustrators and artists make their money doing commissions for businesses. Most businesses will opt for the cheapest solution that meets the quality standard they’re after. The quality standard has already been met and it is far cheaper and faster than hiring an illustrator. So tell me how are all these illustrators and artists going to carry on making a living producing art if they’re priced out of the market?
      - grumpyprole 4y ago

Iwan-Zotow 4y ago

Who then would be reading this BS? I believe GPT-X will generate tons of ... something ... How you would force people to READ IT ? If you know your incoming info is 90% BS, not a guess, not a thought, just knowledge that this is all auto-generated by some multiCPU entity - why would you read it? What are going to gain or to learn?

hooverd 4y ago
They'll summarize it using the same GPT-X.