5 ms·
In every post about LLMs there is someone to blindly say something like this. When in reality if you ask ChatGPT for 10 good movies from this year you will get
by tracerbulletx 2y ago
In every post about LLMs there is someone to blindly say something like this.
When in reality if you ask ChatGPT for 10 good movies from this year you will get this.
Anora - Directed by Sean Baker, a compelling drama about the life of a sex worker in Coney Island.
Challengers - A provocative tennis drama directed by Luca Guadagnino, starring Zendaya.
Dune: Part Two - Denis Villeneuve's continuation of the epic science fiction saga.
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga - An action-packed prequel exploring the origins of Furiosa, directed by George Miller.
Inside Out 2 - Pixar's sequel that dives deeper into the complexities of human emotions.
Wicked - A musical fantasy adaptation directed by Jon M. Chu
.
The Zone of Interest - A thought-provoking film about Auschwitz, directed by Jonathan Glazer.
The Idea of You - A steamy romance starring Anne Hathaway.
Hit Man - A comedy thriller starring Glen Powell.
The Outrun - A powerful drama about a recovering alcoholic, starring Saoirse Ronan.
Let me know if you'd like more details about any of these!
Which is a great list.
- tehwebguy 2y agoThese details are already available in the in flight entertainment interface
- tracerbulletx 2y agoThis type of response is called moving the goal post. When someone responds to one claim, the claim is changed to something different which was not part of the original argument. This is debating in bad faith.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- glenstein 2y agoThey were responding to a commenter suggesting it would produce completely unusable results, the question was never about whether the results produced would be redundant. I know that any mention of fallacies, valid or otherwise, causes instinctive eye rolls, but in this instance I agree with them that this amounts to moving the goalposts.
- slg 2y agoThose descriptions are less detailed than the information you will see on basically any streaming interface and yet it still manages to not being very good. For example, no person who had actually seen Anora would describe it as "a compelling drama about the life of a sex worker in Coney Island".
- glenstein 2y agoI haven't seen Anora so I'll give you that one, but you cited that as if it was just one of many examples, when in fact I think it's the only one, as all the other descriptions seem reasonable. Originally the problem was supposedly that it would hallucinate complete and utter gibberish, but now here we are quibbling over one example and insisting that maybe it's not quite as good as alternative descriptions. The gap between what was produced and what you're looking for is small enough that I think it could be covered with some slightly tweaked prompt instructions. I'm not saying you're wrong but want to note how the goalposts keep seeming to shift whenever we talk about these capabilities.
- slg 2y agoI'm not Alupis. I can't and am not trying to speak on their behalf. I'm therefore not moving the goalposts they established. I'm making my own related point. That point is that the information provided above about these movies is worthless. It does not add any new value beyond what would already be available in the streaming interface. Several of the descriptions are nothing but the genre and one person involved in the making of the movie. And yet even with these descriptions being incredibly short and vague, they still manage to contain at least one misleading summary.
- glenstein 2y agoI'm aware that you're a different commenter but you are addressing yourself to a comment that was in reply to them and therefore not necessarily appropriate to measure such a comment against entirely new criteria that you want to bring into the conversation. Despite your protestations to the contrary, these descriptions seem perfectly fine in that they're accurate and meaningful. And it if you want to start getting fast and loose with all kinds of new extra criteria and requirements for what it's supposed to do, they all seem squarely within the reach of the capabilities on offer, with some prompt tweaks.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- th0ma5 2y agoGreat! Now show me a system that can verify that list for accuracy as well. Not to be flippant, but this is the complaint. You can't approach outputs uncritically. And no I don't want it to be as unreliable as a person who also forgets how English or basic knowledge works at random intervals.
- tracerbulletx 2y agoThe system is I'm a movie nerd who knows all the best movies of the year and have seen them all.
- conductr 2y agoMovie reviews are amongst the most subjective things, how do you define “verify” and “accuracy”?
- th0ma5 2y agoIf I run a business, I guess I would have the ability to bring a libel suit would be one way?
- JadeNB 2y ago> Great! Now show me a system that can verify that list for accuracy as well. Not to be flippant, but this is the complaint. You can't approach outputs uncritically. In general you can't, but surely it's not that big a deal if ChatGPT offers an inaccurate summary of a movie you're about to use to kill time on a flight? I suppose it becomes important if, e.g., you're relying on it to tell you whether a movie is appropriate for children, but, if you're just asking it whether a movie is worth watching, that's a question that doesn't have an objective, factual answer anyway, so a hallucinated answer is probably about as useful as that of a not-previously-known reviewer.
- th0ma5 2y agoIf I invested money into a film, I would want its representation in the world to reflect what the movie is about at the very least.