4 ms·

There's plenty of bullshit going around. You can't convince me ChatGPT launching a few weeks within the collapse of FTX is a coincidence. The crypto hustle-sc

by chx 3y ago

There's plenty of bullshit going around. You can't convince me ChatGPT launching a few weeks within the collapse of FTX is a coincidence. The crypto hustle-scam is over, time for the next hype cycle. That's all there is.

danielbln 3y ago
Boy, people really love to ride the "AI is the new crypto" narrative, huh? Even pulling in spurious relationships to make the point (. Yet here I am, using this tech every day to for productive uses, greatly improving what I can accomplish. What did crypto ever do for us in comparison?
- chx 3y ago
  I am not participating in industrial strength gaslighting. "greatly improving what I can accomplish" is a trap. But to each their own.
  - danielbln 3y ago
    You may be gaslighting yourself if you can't see the actual, tractable, current practical applications of this tech (and that includes local models you can run yourself).
    - chx 3y ago
      That's the thing: there is no actual and tractable use of this tech. It's probabilistic so every answer it can give can only resemble the real one and only accidentally be the real one so you need to fact check it anyways and then why bother? Do consider the AI written mushroom hunting guides being sold on Amazon. Would you trust these literally with your life?
      - flappyeagle 3y ago
        No but I don’t trust you with my life either. Are you useless then?
        chx 3y ago
        Instead of standing up a strawman argument: why don't you trust it? How does that extend to other areas where you do ?
      - danielbln 3y ago
        If you use an LLM as a mere fact dispenser, then yes, they're quite susceptible to hallucinations. That said, there are search enabled LLMs, there is RAG to inject grounding truth into the LLMs context, there are LLMs that use their own code execution environments to validate code and output, all of which severely reduce hallucinations. Also, I would not rely on a single (online) source for matters of life and death (medicine, finding non-poisnonous mushrooms, etc.) so why would LLM output be any different? LLMs are not knowledge bases by themselves, they are text/language transformers, treat them as such or augment them with additional knowledge. Or don't, if you think millions of people are gaslighting you and LLMs are just a parlor trick, then I don't know what to tell you.
      - rashkov 3y ago
        > It's probabilistic so every answer it can give can only resemble the real one and only accidentally be the real one so you need to fact check it anyways and then why bother In the case of code or other computer knowledge, it’s easy enough to check that it works. Your same criticisms also apply to stack overflow, or any webpage you find through a search engine. Why bother when the content might be wrong or made up? What makes you trust those websites more than GPT?
      - rizky05 3y ago
        [dead]
- hanselot 3y ago
  I hate posting my stupid things here, because they are hardly ever relevant, but w/e here goes. Last night I spent a good couple of hours with ChatGPT assessing the similarities between DNA and Blockchain. Blockchain does seem to have quite a few similar features to what DNA. With smart contract type code you introduce a mechanism that can act like an immune system if programmed to, setting up bounties for proactive repair on the open market. I don't know why I want blockchain to act like synthetic DNA, but in my mind these things are more similar than distinct. As is the idea that blockchain could be the natural place to house AI. Why burn the planet down to mine hashes, when you could be mining inference. Anyways, I agree with your sentiment though. A lot of AI is the new crypto is going around, the only difference being, AI has way more potential upside (unless people realise the economy is dead, and only held aloft by trillions of dollars of paper that has next to no value once people realise how diluted it is). Ironically, I think we should listen to 4chan and buy silver xD
krisoft 3y ago
> You can't convince me ChatGPT launching a few weeks within the collapse of FTX is a coincidence. I don't want to convince you about anything. But what is the supposed connection between these?
- chx 3y ago
  There's a cadre of investors I guess epitomized by a16z who hypes some bullshit, makes a lot of money and doesn't care much who gets hurt in the process. They have been loud on crypto and now it's this stochastic parrot, this plausible sentence generator they purport as solving all the problems in the world. Remember the blockchain will solve world hunger articles?
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > They have been loud on crypto and now it's this stochastic parrot Okay. So there are investors hyping these things. You claimed that "ChatGPT launching a few weeks within the collapse of FTX" is not a coincidence. What it is then? Do you believe some of these investors seen FTX collapse and decided to make ChatGPT? Do you believe that OpenAI was delaying the release of ChatGPT until FTX collapsed? What is the connection if they are not coincidence? Please be as specific as you can.
    - chx 3y ago
      > Do you believe some of these investors seen FTX collapse and decided to make ChatGPT? Do you believe that OpenAI was delaying the release of ChatGPT until FTX collapsed? Something along those lines yes: they likely had ongoing research which could be turned into a product relatively easily, this took a few weeks. The timeline matches this.

by chx 3y ago

danielbln 3y ago

Boy, people really love to ride the "AI is the new crypto" narrative, huh? Even pulling in spurious relationships to make the point (. Yet here I am, using this tech every day to for productive uses, greatly improving what I can accomplish. What did crypto ever do for us in comparison?

chx 3y ago
I am not participating in industrial strength gaslighting. "greatly improving what I can accomplish" is a trap. But to each their own.
- danielbln 3y ago
  You may be gaslighting yourself if you can't see the actual, tractable, current practical applications of this tech (and that includes local models you can run yourself).
  - chx 3y ago
    That's the thing: there is no actual and tractable use of this tech. It's probabilistic so every answer it can give can only resemble the real one and only accidentally be the real one so you need to fact check it anyways and then why bother? Do consider the AI written mushroom hunting guides being sold on Amazon. Would you trust these literally with your life?
    - flappyeagle 3y ago
      No but I don’t trust you with my life either. Are you useless then?
      - chx 3y ago
        Instead of standing up a strawman argument: why don't you trust it? How does that extend to other areas where you do ?
    - danielbln 3y ago
      If you use an LLM as a mere fact dispenser, then yes, they're quite susceptible to hallucinations. That said, there are search enabled LLMs, there is RAG to inject grounding truth into the LLMs context, there are LLMs that use their own code execution environments to validate code and output, all of which severely reduce hallucinations. Also, I would not rely on a single (online) source for matters of life and death (medicine, finding non-poisnonous mushrooms, etc.) so why would LLM output be any different? LLMs are not knowledge bases by themselves, they are text/language transformers, treat them as such or augment them with additional knowledge. Or don't, if you think millions of people are gaslighting you and LLMs are just a parlor trick, then I don't know what to tell you.
    - rashkov 3y ago
      > It's probabilistic so every answer it can give can only resemble the real one and only accidentally be the real one so you need to fact check it anyways and then why bother In the case of code or other computer knowledge, it’s easy enough to check that it works. Your same criticisms also apply to stack overflow, or any webpage you find through a search engine. Why bother when the content might be wrong or made up? What makes you trust those websites more than GPT?
    - rizky05 3y ago
      [dead]
hanselot 3y ago
I hate posting my stupid things here, because they are hardly ever relevant, but w/e here goes. Last night I spent a good couple of hours with ChatGPT assessing the similarities between DNA and Blockchain. Blockchain does seem to have quite a few similar features to what DNA. With smart contract type code you introduce a mechanism that can act like an immune system if programmed to, setting up bounties for proactive repair on the open market. I don't know why I want blockchain to act like synthetic DNA, but in my mind these things are more similar than distinct. As is the idea that blockchain could be the natural place to house AI. Why burn the planet down to mine hashes, when you could be mining inference. Anyways, I agree with your sentiment though. A lot of AI is the new crypto is going around, the only difference being, AI has way more potential upside (unless people realise the economy is dead, and only held aloft by trillions of dollars of paper that has next to no value once people realise how diluted it is). Ironically, I think we should listen to 4chan and buy silver xD

krisoft 3y ago

> You can't convince me ChatGPT launching a few weeks within the collapse of FTX is a coincidence. I don't want to convince you about anything. But what is the supposed connection between these?

chx 3y ago
There's a cadre of investors I guess epitomized by a16z who hypes some bullshit, makes a lot of money and doesn't care much who gets hurt in the process. They have been loud on crypto and now it's this stochastic parrot, this plausible sentence generator they purport as solving all the problems in the world. Remember the blockchain will solve world hunger articles?
- krisoft 3y ago
  > They have been loud on crypto and now it's this stochastic parrot Okay. So there are investors hyping these things. You claimed that "ChatGPT launching a few weeks within the collapse of FTX" is not a coincidence. What it is then? Do you believe some of these investors seen FTX collapse and decided to make ChatGPT? Do you believe that OpenAI was delaying the release of ChatGPT until FTX collapsed? What is the connection if they are not coincidence? Please be as specific as you can.
  - chx 3y ago
    > Do you believe some of these investors seen FTX collapse and decided to make ChatGPT? Do you believe that OpenAI was delaying the release of ChatGPT until FTX collapsed? Something along those lines yes: they likely had ongoing research which could be turned into a product relatively easily, this took a few weeks. The timeline matches this.