4 ms·

Awkward timing with that name and the whole Q* intrigue involving OpenAI.

by _qua 3y ago

peheje 3y ago
Q is a fictional character in the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (TNG) series. He is a member of the Q Continuum, a race of omnipotent, immortal beings who exist outside of normal space and time. Q is portrayed by actor John de Lancie. Using a name associated with omnipotence could lead to unrealistic expectations about the AI's capabilities. Users might assume it has more power or knowledge than it actually possesses.
- varelse 3y ago
  [dead]
- runlevel1 3y ago
  > Users might assume it has more power or knowledge than it actually possesses. Maybe, but I don't think that's deliberate. We in tech do love our cheeky, nerdy service names. And this sure beats AWS's usual naming pattern. Q was also manipulative and mischievous. I doubt they want to convey that association.
- 93po 3y ago
  Please don’t use ChatGPT for commenting without disclosure
  - peheje 3y ago
    Thanks for raising that point, I agree it deserves attention. Is this a personal preference or an official guideline of HN? This ambiguity in your message actually underscores the very reason I find value in using AI like ChatGPT. It helps in achieving greater precision and clarity in communication, something we both seem to value In the spirit of clarity and efficiency, I chose to use ChatGPT to assist in formulating my response, even most of them, much like one might use a calculator for mathematics. The goal here, as I see it, is to enrich our conversation with precision and thoughtfulness, one thing the internet needs in my experience. However, I recognize the importance of transparency in this context. It's a fundamental component of honest discourse. I will ensure to disclose the use of such AI tools in future interactions, question is precisely how? Could comments be water-marked, or would a "AI-assisted-response" tag be appropriate? I think some more discussion on this is required. It’s crucial that we embrace these new technologies with both an appreciation for their utility and a commitment to ethical communication practices. If HN is not the place for this, I'm not sure where is, X?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - 93po 3y ago
      If I'm remembering correctly, dang (the main moderator here) specifically stated that ChatGPT comments are not allowed unless it's obviously stated as such, and even then, only if ChatGPT's response is notable for the discussion. The component of honesty for me is the social contract that we're interacting in good faith, which for me also implies that you're accurately representing yourself. The implication (and rules) for commenting here is that you're a human writing to another human. To break this basic foundation, even if assumed, is dishonest in my opinion. I am not sure there's any social media platform that someone could ethically post ChatGPT responses to unless the entire account is clearly labeled as AI. Your comment brings up the interesting aspect of people who have disabilities and use ChatGPT to assist in their messaging. But that's another conversation.
      - peheje 3y ago
        Okay. I would be interested in a link for the the rule-set. I understand I'm a guest here at HN, and will respect the rules. AI can definitely help with disabilities in communication, but I think it goes much further than this. Non-native language, human bias/error, difference in culture and norms - leading to unproductive discourse, for example.. In any case, I think Q would be a perfect name for an AI producing these snarky (humanly) ego-driven comment we're both guilty of.. I see I'm loosing some internet-points in this discussion (downvotes - I don't even have that capability so can't retaliate, feel like punching bag), so unsure I feel comfortable continuing. Would like to know why people downvote. I think there's some pretty interesting topics brought up between us: honesty in online communications, AI transparency, what constitutes human interaction? However it seems HN is not the place for this, and maybe there's merit in this point, especially with the post being about Amazon Q AI. So let's end it here.
        93po 3y ago
        Guidelines link is at bottom of page. I don’t have time to find dang’s comment on my phone right now. I recommend ignoring downvotes unless it’s like negative 5, innocent comments get one constantly and it’s probably people misclicking or deliberate fuzzing. I upvoted your comment just now
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
calvinmorrison 3y ago
Q+ is a hypothetical additional source that is shared by both Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark

Awkward timing with that name and the whole Q* intrigue involving OpenAI.

by _qua 3y ago

Awkward timing with that name and the whole Q* intrigue involving OpenAI.

Q is a fictional character in the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (TNG) series. He is a member of the Q Continuum, a race of omnipotent, immortal beings who exist outside of normal space and time. Q is portrayed by actor John de Lancie. Using a name associated with omnipotence could lead to unrealistic expectations about the AI's capabilities. Users might assume it has more power or knowledge than it actually possesses.

varelse 3y ago
[dead]
runlevel1 3y ago
> Users might assume it has more power or knowledge than it actually possesses. Maybe, but I don't think that's deliberate. We in tech do love our cheeky, nerdy service names. And this sure beats AWS's usual naming pattern. Q was also manipulative and mischievous. I doubt they want to convey that association.
93po 3y ago
Please don’t use ChatGPT for commenting without disclosure
- peheje 3y ago
  Thanks for raising that point, I agree it deserves attention. Is this a personal preference or an official guideline of HN? This ambiguity in your message actually underscores the very reason I find value in using AI like ChatGPT. It helps in achieving greater precision and clarity in communication, something we both seem to value In the spirit of clarity and efficiency, I chose to use ChatGPT to assist in formulating my response, even most of them, much like one might use a calculator for mathematics. The goal here, as I see it, is to enrich our conversation with precision and thoughtfulness, one thing the internet needs in my experience. However, I recognize the importance of transparency in this context. It's a fundamental component of honest discourse. I will ensure to disclose the use of such AI tools in future interactions, question is precisely how? Could comments be water-marked, or would a "AI-assisted-response" tag be appropriate? I think some more discussion on this is required. It’s crucial that we embrace these new technologies with both an appreciation for their utility and a commitment to ethical communication practices. If HN is not the place for this, I'm not sure where is, X?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 93po 3y ago
    If I'm remembering correctly, dang (the main moderator here) specifically stated that ChatGPT comments are not allowed unless it's obviously stated as such, and even then, only if ChatGPT's response is notable for the discussion. The component of honesty for me is the social contract that we're interacting in good faith, which for me also implies that you're accurately representing yourself. The implication (and rules) for commenting here is that you're a human writing to another human. To break this basic foundation, even if assumed, is dishonest in my opinion. I am not sure there's any social media platform that someone could ethically post ChatGPT responses to unless the entire account is clearly labeled as AI. Your comment brings up the interesting aspect of people who have disabilities and use ChatGPT to assist in their messaging. But that's another conversation.
    - peheje 3y ago
      Okay. I would be interested in a link for the the rule-set. I understand I'm a guest here at HN, and will respect the rules. AI can definitely help with disabilities in communication, but I think it goes much further than this. Non-native language, human bias/error, difference in culture and norms - leading to unproductive discourse, for example.. In any case, I think Q would be a perfect name for an AI producing these snarky (humanly) ego-driven comment we're both guilty of.. I see I'm loosing some internet-points in this discussion (downvotes - I don't even have that capability so can't retaliate, feel like punching bag), so unsure I feel comfortable continuing. Would like to know why people downvote. I think there's some pretty interesting topics brought up between us: honesty in online communications, AI transparency, what constitutes human interaction? However it seems HN is not the place for this, and maybe there's merit in this point, especially with the post being about Amazon Q AI. So let's end it here.
      - 93po 3y ago
        Guidelines link is at bottom of page. I don’t have time to find dang’s comment on my phone right now. I recommend ignoring downvotes unless it’s like negative 5, innocent comments get one constantly and it’s probably people misclicking or deliberate fuzzing. I upvoted your comment just now

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

calvinmorrison 3y ago

Q+ is a hypothetical additional source that is shared by both Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark