3 ms·
So we’re pretending making something an order of magnitude easier makes no difference? Ok.
by dclowd9901 3y ago
So we’re pretending making something an order of magnitude easier makes no difference? Ok.
- passwordoops 3y agoIt's not an order of magnitude easier. It won't make a difference
- devmor 3y agoAre we pretending Faker hasn't been a staple library in software testing for years?
- ethanbond 3y agoAre we pretending GPT isn’t a leagues better data-faker than Faker?
- swatcoder 3y agoAs always, it depends on your requirements. GPT definitely wins out if you want more novelty/variety in your fake data and are willing to accept extraordinarily higher cost, less rigor, and less reliability. I'm sure there's some occasion when those criteria win out, but Faker's pretty decent most of the time.
- ethanbond 3y agoThankfully using GPT doesn’t preclude you from using Faker, so I think we can all agree this is strictly an improvement in one’s ability to fake data.
- lacrimacida 3y agoChatGPT will unlock new levels of both good and bad. The question is what the ratio between the two is going to be.
- egberts1 3y agoIf you think about it, it will make 99% of ChatGPT answer technically INCORRECT. It is harder to keep bad data out than it is to keep it filled with good data.
- Forgeties79 3y agoReminds me of the “asymmetric bullshit principle”
- egberts1 3y agoPrecisely. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law#:~:text=Brandolini's%20law%2C%20also%20known%20as,it%20in%20the%20first%20place https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law#:~:text=B....
- throwaway14356 3y agowhich is the best kind of incorrect?
- insanitybit 3y agoI'm not sure this is much better than the state of the art. Training a model on data and then having it generate new, fake data, is not only easy, it's a standard tool for model boosting.
- spookie 3y agoPoisoning the well for others, huh?
- Onawa 3y agoI wouldn't immediately call creating synthetic data 'poisoning the well' unless it is actually distributed as such. For training models with a minimal amount of quality data, it is a viable method for generating more data to increase the quality of the models. But any legit organization will obviously label synthetic data as such.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- muzani 3y agoSure, but what do you expect? It's like blaming Boeing for genocide and then trying to get rid of 747s. There's plenty of research into AI safety. There were some damn coups going on over AI safety. The general public defines AI safety as Skynet and homemade bombs, but it's also things like this - political manipulation, astroturfing, fake data, the risk of another industrial revolution. It's something we should be slamming the brakes on, but most of the people calling out AI safety are also building their own B52 bombers, so nobody takes them seriously either. 80000 Hours has been telling people to get into AI and nuclear policy for years now. Hopefully we have some competent people in govs who do something.
- sebosp 3y agoThis is so worrying for me, the amount of digital garbage that can now be generated that is not obviously garbage, that one must read and discern first nonsensical bad text generation and second if factual, is truth becoming a needle in the hay stack? How can this be cleaned?