I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.
While GPT-4 might not churn out top-notch books just yet, this tech is getting better and will be a major part of how we interact with the world and eachother in the future.
Id like Lemmy to still be relevant in a few years. We shouldn’t shy away from new tech.
this tech is getting better and will be a major part of how we interact with the world and eachother in the future.
Well that’s bloody terrifying, yeah? The tech is still young and people are already using it to avoid learning new things. It just churns out text that sounds correct but often isn’t and people just take it at its word. It has no more understanding of the text it shits out than a toddler who has learned to swear.
Look, mate, people are fuckin’ lazy and if there’s a shortcut, they’re gonna take it (Example). They’re not gonna fact check the magic bot because that’s work and defeats the purpose of using the magic answer-bot in the first place. I do not look forward to a world where intellectual curiosity dies at the hand of “let me just ask a bot to do it for me”. That’s not even getting into the use of it by malicious actors to influence the gullible or stupid or the massive carbon footprint for all the compute resources it takes to run those models.
Id like Lemmy to still be relevant in a few years. We shouldn’t shy away from new tech.
Agree on the first part, but heavily disagree on the second when it comes to bot-generated crap,
Do you think humans don’t just “churn out text” at a basic level? Do you think humans don’t make mistakes or don’t confabulate? The confusion is not that we think too lowly of LLMs rather than that we think we are very special as humans. LLMs like GPT-4 have “sparks of AGI” in them, they are not just stochastic parrots. There are several academic papers that prove LLMs uderstand meaning. GPT-4, the full model, not the crippled chat variant for consumers, demonstrated superhuman coding abilities when researchers probed it’s abilities. It passed Google and Amazon coding interviews with 100 out of 100 score and finished the 2 hour assignment in 3minutes surpassing all human candidates. And it took it so long (3m) only because a human had to paste in the tasks.
Ask chatgpt everything. Learn nothing, develop no new skills of your own, and let’s see what you regret on your deathbed. I’m willing to bet most people are going to regret not learning to paint, write, compose music, play an instrument, etc rather than regret all the things they didn’t get a bot to do for them.
Oi, can we please leave the bot-generated shite on Reddit?
Chatgpt is only a tool, it’s good to explore ideas.
Unlike reddit this is a free speech zone so no.
- Randall Munroe
While GPT-4 might not churn out top-notch books just yet, this tech is getting better and will be a major part of how we interact with the world and eachother in the future.
Id like Lemmy to still be relevant in a few years. We shouldn’t shy away from new tech.
Well that’s bloody terrifying, yeah? The tech is still young and people are already using it to avoid learning new things. It just churns out text that sounds correct but often isn’t and people just take it at its word. It has no more understanding of the text it shits out than a toddler who has learned to swear.
Look, mate, people are fuckin’ lazy and if there’s a shortcut, they’re gonna take it (Example). They’re not gonna fact check the magic bot because that’s work and defeats the purpose of using the magic answer-bot in the first place. I do not look forward to a world where intellectual curiosity dies at the hand of “let me just ask a bot to do it for me”. That’s not even getting into the use of it by malicious actors to influence the gullible or stupid or the massive carbon footprint for all the compute resources it takes to run those models.
Agree on the first part, but heavily disagree on the second when it comes to bot-generated crap,
Do you think humans don’t just “churn out text” at a basic level? Do you think humans don’t make mistakes or don’t confabulate? The confusion is not that we think too lowly of LLMs rather than that we think we are very special as humans. LLMs like GPT-4 have “sparks of AGI” in them, they are not just stochastic parrots. There are several academic papers that prove LLMs uderstand meaning. GPT-4, the full model, not the crippled chat variant for consumers, demonstrated superhuman coding abilities when researchers probed it’s abilities. It passed Google and Amazon coding interviews with 100 out of 100 score and finished the 2 hour assignment in 3minutes surpassing all human candidates. And it took it so long (3m) only because a human had to paste in the tasks.
You know what, mate, I give up. 🤦♂️
Ask chatgpt everything. Learn nothing, develop no new skills of your own, and let’s see what you regret on your deathbed. I’m willing to bet most people are going to regret not learning to paint, write, compose music, play an instrument, etc rather than regret all the things they didn’t get a bot to do for them.