4 ms·
It was interesting talking to my father, a former Christian minister, about AI. ChatGPT interactions had instilled some misconceptions and it was difficult to c
by deckar01 3y ago
It was interesting talking to my father, a former Christian minister, about AI. ChatGPT interactions had instilled some misconceptions and it was difficult to convince him that its responses were just cleverly weighted randomness. It produced compelling theological debate. I told him not to trust any chat bot unless it could cite verifiable sources, and when prompted ChatGPT could only fabricate. Trust eroded.
In consolation I sat up a vector index of The Works of Josephus (his interest at the time) and a StableBeluga chatbot. It answered questions fairly well, but most importantly supplied the references that were used as context. In the end there was still just too much cultural and historical context missing to be a useful alternative to scholarly analysis.
- actionfromafar 3y agoOn the other hand, this is exactly the kind of application I think AI/LLM/GPT-whatever could prove extremely useful in. A model could be retrained and finetuned and corrected and double-checked on a limited corpus, until it would be able to discuss and explain something very very well in a particular subject. Such things could be used in education, I imagine. Like an extra, never tiring teacher.
- drekipus 3y agoThe issue is the limited corpus and lack of external context. Any of the output should only be suggestions to base off further research, and a big disclaimer that this is only logical Inference
- viraptor 3y ago> In the end there was still just too much cultural and historical context missing This was my first thought when seeing the project. How well do we expect LLMs to work for text where words often don't have their normal meaning, half the things shouldn't be taken literally, and we have lots of contradictions? This feels like it should have way more warnings than ChatGPT itself.