"Sam Altman is one of the dullest, most incurious and least creative people to walk this earth."
"Sam Altman is one of the dullest, most incurious and least creative people to walk this earth."
in response to Bender pointing out that ChatGPT and its competitors simply encode relationships between words and have no concept of referent or meaning, which is a devastating critique of what the technology actually does, the absolute best response he can muster for his work is "yeah, but humans don't do anything more complicated than that". I mean, speak for yourself Sam: the rest of us have some concept of semiotics, and we can do things like identify anagrams or count the number of letters in a word, which requires a level of recursivity that's beyond what ChatGPT can muster.
Boom Shanka (emphasis added)
I don't think those have anything to do with recursion (unless "recursivity" means something else?), they're just a consequence of the token system ChatGPT is using.
'i am a stochastic parrot and so are u'
reminds me of
"In his desperation to have produced reality through computation, he denigrates actual reality by equating it to computation"
(from this review/analysis of the devs series). A pattern annoying common among the LLM AI fans.
someone sent out the batpromptfondler signal and the mods are in shooting gallery mode
please refrain from commenting unaccordingly
b-but David, they’ve been so reasonable and here we are getting emotional about the fucking garbage technology they’ve come here to shove down our throats alongside a heaping serving of capitalist brainrot from the same types of self-described geniuses who gave us OKRs
MRW 38 of the 39 comments have almost nothing to do with the article
That website only works in private mode on Firefox for me, and even then some pages display different things than it is saying it will. It feels like an easter egg almost, does someone have more info about this group?
u wot? works fine in Firefox here. Try this archive or this archive.
I think our comments just crossed each other, read my follow up. I think it was an issue with the site at that specific moment (500 error) instead of the site being quirky
same here, works fine in Fx (133, aarch64)
Privacy Browser with JS off (by default) can read the article and navigate, only minor eye-sore are the buttons at the top of the site which are on a transparent background and stay on top of the text as I scroll down
hmm maybe it was just a temporary issue. I was getting a 500 error while still seeing part of the site, and the about page had some pseudocode on it that I thought was intentional, but maybe it was just being a bit buggy because now it seems fine.
The blog post itself is an interesting read bytheway, forgot to mention that in my curiosity for interesting web pages
What is up wit h the design of this website. There's huge amounts of dead space.
The content though... it just reads like somebody who's pretty angry. I do like the odd rant here and there, but this one misses the mark. "I Will Fucking Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again" was much more to my liking (despite the damn 3 column design).
sorry you don't like anger! we'll improve your lemmyverse experience
been a little while since we had A Programming Dot Dev here, I think. guess it was time
What is up wit h the design of this website. There's huge amounts of dead space.
The content though... it just reads like somebody who's pretty angry. I do like the odd rant here and there, but this one misses the mark. "I Will Fucking Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again" was much more to my liking (despite the damn 3 column design).
Perhaps because I paused to read a little of the Dunciad before continuing with this essay, I think many of its attacks lack the precision and wit to justify their viciousness. I'm generally sympathetic to the premise, but whatever its merits it does not compare all that well with Alexander Pope. Maybe there is more insight and entertainment yet to be derived from comparing ChatGPT itself to Dulness.
profound reasoning indeed, this way to the egress so you can contemplate further
After all, there's almost nothing that ChatGPT is actually useful for.
It's takes like this that just discredit the rest of the text.
You can dislike LLM AI for its environmental impact or questionable interpretation of fair use when it comes to intellectual property. But pretending it's actually useless just makes someone seem like they aren't dissimilar to a Drama YouTuber jumping in on whatever the latest on-trend thing to hate is.
"Almost nothing" is not the same as "actually useless". The former is saying the applications are limited, which is true.
LLMs are fine for fictional interactions, as in things that appear to be real but aren't. They suck at anything that involves being reliably factual, which is most things including all the stupid places LLMs and other AI are being jammed in to despite being consistely wrong, which tech bros love to call hallucinations.
They have LIMITED applications, but are being implemented as useful for everything.
To be honest, as someone who's very interested in computer generated text and poetry and the like, I find generic LLMs far less interesting than more traditional markov chains because they're too good at reproducing clichés at the exclusion of anything surprising or whimsical. So I don't think they're very good for the unfactual either. Probably a homegrown neural network would have better results.
Does a sealion have bootlicker nature? Ugh.
Does a serial complainer use buzzwords? Ugh.
Let's be real here: when people hear the word AI or LLM they don't think of any of the applications of ML that you might slap the label "potentially useful" on (notwithstanding the fact that many of them also are in a all-that-glitters-is-not-gold--kinda situation). The first thing that comes to mind for almost everyone is shitty autoplag like ChatGPT which is also what the author explicitly mentions.
I'm saying ChatGPT is not useless.
I'm a senior software engineer and I make use of it several times a week either directly or via things built on top of it. Yes you can't trust it will be perfect, but I can't trust a junior engineer to be perfect either—code review is something I've done long before AI and will continue to do long into the future.
I empirically work quicker with it than without and the engineers I know who are still avoiding it work noticeably slower. If it was useless this would not be the case.
It's useful insofar as you can accommodate its fundamental flaw of randomly making stuff the fuck up, say by having a qualified expert constantly combing its output instead of doing original work, and don't mind putting your name on low quality derivative slop in the first place.
actually you know what? with all the motte and baileying, you can take a month off. bye!
Petition to replace "motte and bailey" per the Batman clause with "lying like a dipshit".
