3 ms·
simonw’s linguistic argument seems to be “i’m right and i’m not gonna listen to you lalalalalala”. throwing a strawman paragraph comparison to a 5 word phrase d
by zamnos 4y ago
simonw’s linguistic argument seems to be “i’m right and i’m not gonna listen to you lalalalalala”. throwing a strawman paragraph comparison to a 5 word phrase doesn’t bolster his argument at all. You could just say “ChatGPT gets things wrong” instead of “ChatGPT will lie to you!” without the yelling and anthropomorphizing
- simonw 4y agoWe've been trying that for months. "ChatGPT gets things wrong" does not appear to be sinking in for a lot of people. I used a strawman paragraph deliberately as a rhetorical device: that's what strawman paragraphs are for.
- zamnos 4y agoshit I'm honored you replied, sorry for being rude about it. Didn't think my comment would even get seen in a days old thread. Didn't account for its appreance in /newcomments or however you found it. Anyway, I can appreciate the rhetoric, I've used that technique myself. My opinion on the matter is that we do need to debate linguistics before we can properly proceed. I know it does't feel like work or it feels like a waste of time if you're coming at it from the angle of a software engineer, writing code and delivering value every day, but in the humanities, words and diction are paramount. "ChatGPT gets things wrong" will sink in for people when they personally encounter a wrong bit that trips them up. hopefully before they put their money or reputation on the line, or use the "facts" as load bearing. Because that's the real worry, isn't it. Load bearing facts result in a doctorGPT that will prescribe the wrong medication and kill somebody, that a lawyerGPT will write a contract that hurts someone, that programmerGPT will write the wrong code and hurt somebody, financially or reputationally online.