Where is ChatGPT taking us? And do we want to follow?

More like asking students in an exam question to summarize the book they were supposed to read.

>Not really? I mean if you ask people to explain the 10 endings to Inside

that's just the computer doing what computers do.

the point is that humans routinely and confidently state their opinion as fact, any online forum will demonstrate that.

>as accurately as it can according to it's training data, and that is it's major flaw.

so we teach people that they need to be discerning with the way they use the tool.

Kids in elementary school are taught that generally trust runs from :

personal blog -> .com -> .org -> .gov -> .edu

At this point ChatGPT sits around the "personal blog" level of trust. As long as people use the tool with this in mind then it's just business as usual.

The thing to understand about ChatGPT is that at its core it isn't a question-answering machine, it's a text-continuation machine which by pure coincidence often continues a question with its answer. And it's learning primarily from data from people posting stuff on the internet (and only very rarely seeing actual conversations) so it has learned that "human language" pretty much never involves people saying that they don't know stuff, but does involve a LOT of assertive speculating and convinced 'preaching' even when saying untrue things.

Like, imagine seeing a human-written a blog post for some click-bait site titled "Venus Williams eighth grand slam victory" or "The 10 secret endings for Inside" - ChatGPT will write pretty much the same thing as that human would. That blog post won't say "ah, I have no idea about these endings, I haven't seen them in my games", it would confidently repeat various rumors and if the author would invent some new fan theories, then they would often be stated in an assertive manner as fact.

Furthermore, when doing its final reinforcement learning fine-tuning on top of the core GPT "3.5" model, it almost certainly was asked about some stuff which was simply more recent than the data used in training the core model - I mean, it can't know what happened last month - but it would be penalized if it would assert that things are the exact same as they were when the training data ended and reject things the user explicitly states that contradict its (inevitably outdated) knowledge. For all it knows, Williams has won 8 grand slams, simply the eighth one happened in the year after ChatGPT "stopped reading newspapers", so if a discussion mentions the eighth victory it has to assume that it is real, otherwise it would fail in so many other scenarios - e.g. refusing to acknowledge that some country has elected a different government or that a war has started.

If you ask google this same thing, you could still get the wrong answer, what if there's two games called 'inside', or it mistakes 'inside' the game for the Pixar movie of the same name.

Are you telling me you've never googled and gotten shit results, aka unusable stuff? Everything comes back with 100% accuracy?

I mean, I know we need to be more skeptical of the results, but this is also early days. All we need are fact-checking engines that can give some sort of confidence score to results, and that should at least start moving in the right direction.

10 years from now, this will be moot, as the models they will have will be so far advanced we, probably won't even think it's possible or can fathom what it does to disrupt society. To say generative X hasn't disrupted industry already is insane, whether it's art, music, video, text - generative ai is going to only get better and more insane as text to video and voice cloning tech becomes mainstream.

Imagine being self-conscous and wanting to do a youtube channel, so you have a virtual avatar with your own voice do it for you - you just write the script. (This is where I really want the ai tech to shine, as I want to do just this. :))

Ah, but isn’t it? All storytelling is a simulation of reality. This is something all great artists have explored. Where does art end and reality begin? It is not a solid line.

I can give you hundreds of TikTok videos of young adults struggling to tell the difference.

> ChatGPT will just generate lies, there’s quite a significant difference.

Lies have existed since the dawn of civilization, so the difference doesn't seem significant, at all.

> The problem is that chatgpt will lie to your face and tell you it isn’t lying.

So will the news media and I mean all from the right-wing drivel at Fox/Newsmax to MSNBC, and CNN.

Tucker Carlson actually won a lawsuit regarding this because it was deemed that he was quote: 'an entertainer' NOT a 'news person'. So, basically an actor playing a news caster, and a large swath of society cannot see the difference.

MSNBC, would say anything to make Bernie look bad so he'd drop down in polls, CNN as well. If you ask any of these people point blank to list the lies they've told on camera, under oath, you'd get a lot of '5ths'.

Hell, I mostly get my news from just headlines on reddit/hn simply because reading past the headline usually leads to a lot of opinions, and biases. If I want opinions/biases, I'd rather read comments from people who DID read the article, as they're usually way more informed on the subject than the actual author.

We're using the wrong language to describe what ChatGPT does. It can't lie to you because lying requires intent to deceive, and the software has no intent. The software does one thing: It generates text based on a prompt. All this other stuff that's being layered atop it, including filters to add political bias and filters to catch some derogatory speech, are after it does its thing, or before it's allowed to digest the prompt.

Even without those fingers on the scale for good or ill, all ChatGPT can do is generate text from the prompt. It doesn't "know" things. It cannot process meaning. It can only produce likely text given its training text.

The problem is in our anthropomorphizing the tool. It is a tool, and people who regularly use tools know their limitations and appropriate applications. We're making the tool available to a general public that has no idea what the limitations are. The public is told this is "AI" (it isn't), and they're thinking C3PO not automated MadLibs.

The real thing this is going to do is drastically increase the noise, drowning out signal in our day to day lives. Nothing will be trustworthy information, because all of it will get washed through these generators.