3 ms·
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 uncritical
by th0ma5 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. 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.
- JadeNB 2y ago> If 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. Sure, but that's the filmmaker's interest. As someone sitting on a plane trying to decide whether to watch a movie, I care about my interest, not that of the person who made it. I'm not particularly arguing for the use of ChatGPT here (I wouldn't use it), just that the risks it usually poses are fairly minimal in this case.
- th0ma5 2y agoYou're forgetting the information hazard of five years from now someone mentioning a movie and you saying "oh I didn't want to watch that because of the car chase" and everyone looks at you funny because it is a film set in the 1700s about a carriage driver.
- glenstein 2y agoThey were responding to a comment that suggested that this was a category where the only thing you would get is unintelligible gibberish. You don't even seem to be disputing the actual results here, just gesturing towards a kind of philosophy class exercise of whether we can ever "really" verify its accuracy. I see Wittgenstein's name increasingly tossed around in these parts (a good thing!), so I'll just note that one of the reasons he's hailed as one of the great philosophers of the 20th century is because he felt these puzzles about "really" knowing were frivolous. I don't think I agree that what's needed here is some new and extra process of verification. I think the same usual quality control criteria that are already being used are good enough in this case.
- th0ma5 2y agoYes, like, how are corporations (like movie productions in this example) supposed to control their message?