4 ms·
Half of them are asking for a pause so they have time to catch up. The other half of them (Sam Altman, OpenAI and co.) are playing into this to make ChatGPT see
by mjr00 4y ago
Half of them are asking for a pause so they have time to catch up. The other half of them (Sam Altman, OpenAI and co.) are playing into this to make ChatGPT seem far more powerful, and therefore valuable, than it actually is.
Look at the people in other parts of this comment section comparing ChatGPT to nuclear weapons. Absolute insanity.
- Teever 4y agoDo you think it's more accurate to describe ChatGPT as similar to The Chicago Pile[0] or do you think it's nothing like nuclear reactors/weapons at all? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
- barelyauser 4y agoThe Chicago Pile was fission. ChatGPT is not intelligence.
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoAlso, our theoretical understanding of nuclear physics in 1942 directly extended to the plausibility of nuclear weapons. We don’t have a similar understanding of intelligence. We can’t say what the scale and capability limits of LLMs really are; they could develop into something trans-Turing, or the method could hit a wall beyond which it ceases to gain functionality.
- Teever 4y agoSo is chatGPT more akin to the experiments performed by Marie Curie and her husband?
- sethd 4y ago> The other half of them (Sam Altman, OpenAI and co.) are playing into this to make ChatGPT seem far more powerful, and therefore valuable, than it actually is. Exactly. I’m surprised so many are falling for this (sort of). It’s the same playbook Musk has been using for years (playing up fears of AGI being right around the corner) so people will think a functional FSD is right around the corner.