3 ms·
After the times story [0], the limitations of the context window look fatal for these different offerings, so we’ll see more marketing—-stories like this. [0]
by ttyprintk 2y ago
After the times story [0], the limitations of the context window look fatal for these different offerings, so we’ll see more marketing—-stories like this.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42710976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42710976
- smcin 2y agoRight. everdrive commented "People can incorrectly attribute consciousness, intent, and personality to things which don’t actually possess it." [0]; and I posted my reaction to Hopkins' piece below. At the most basic level we can have a tool that sends us daily affirmations, but it does not possess consciousness and perceive us, let alone form an opinion of us. It is possible to have a parasocial connection to an app, as much as a famous person. If Hopkins' has asked the AI boyfriend to justify its utterances wrt past events or interactions, would be useful to read. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42710976#:~:text=everdrive-,27%20days%20ago,-%7C%20next%20%5B%E2%80%93%5D https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42710976#:~:text=everdr...
- ttyprintk 2y agoWe'll have to look at this particular article in terms of error: Type I: the writer is a real person with a real story. She admits she has a type, and OnlyFans would have satisfied that for cheaper than $70. But, others using $2400 ChatGPT Pro have found that even it lacks enough context for anything longer than a fantasy. The only reason to write about a $70 app is because OnlyFans does not allow AI interaction. Type II: we incorrectly conclude this is a real person. Maybe this is less interesting, but I wonder what would happen if we asked AI Boyfriend to write his own 1,000-word advertisement. Very Turing test.