3 ms·
> If I were to start with ChatGPT I would, necessarily, only say what has been said. That is simply untrue. I think you vastly underestimate the space of possi
by dr_dshiv 4y ago
> If I were to start with ChatGPT I would, necessarily, only say what has been said.
That is simply untrue. I think you vastly underestimate the space of possibility.
- caddemon 4y agoEh I think it's untrue prose wise, and I can buy a non-anthropomorphizing argument that ChatGPT can be creative with language use. However I don't think it's untrue when it comes to being truly creative with ideas. If you ask it about less well established research (but still well known about within whatever scientific community circa 2021) it utterly fails to reason about it or be creative about it at all. It often says wrong things but forgetting that it just doesn't coherently put together different ideas that weren't in its training set IME. Like well below the bar for a conversation with an average lay person about whatever biology topic. Tbf I haven't tried this much with ChatGPT4, but initial impressions weren't great and I played around with the original release quite a bit. I'd say I was impressed with the language but very rarely with the content.
- dr_dshiv 4y agoI have soo many counter examples… maybe just keep trying?
- caddemon 4y agoCare to share any?
- fauxpause_ 4y agoI talked to a kid about research he hadn’t seen before and I wasn’t impressed by the language or the content. TBF, he was a kid and he didn’t know why I was talking about. But I think it’s ok to generalize to all humans.