BitCoin had no real use-cases beyond betting and pump and dump and niche trading that the general public could not get in on. ChatGPT is being used creatively today by millions. It does your homework.
How is this classed as a bubble or hype. How can you possibly see it as a waste of effort or equivalent to talking to a parrot??
I can't use it to generate anything without thorough review for soundness either, so it doesn't really have potential to automate much of anything as far as I'm concerned.
About the only really good use of it I have seen is "Nothing, Forever", an entertainment/art piece that thrives on the jank of what it produces.
I have no doubt that technology will eventually get there, but I certainly don't see it as there today.
"Yeah, I hear what you're saying about the limitations of language models like GPT-3, especially when it comes to more creative tasks like writing. But it's still pretty impressive what these models can do! I mean, think about all the time they can save us by handling repetitive tasks, like customer service or even generating news articles. And who knows, maybe someday they'll be even better at the creative stuff too.
I know it's frustrating when you have to review everything the model outputs, but that's not just a problem with language models. People make mistakes too, y'know? So let's use these models as tools to help us, instead of trying to replace us completely.
All in all, while they may not be perfect yet, language models have a ton of potential to make our lives easier and more efficient. And that's pretty cool, if you ask me!"
This is probably helpful to someone, presumably someone with a great need for an automated bullshit generator, but it isn't helpful to me.
> I mean, think about all the time they can save us by handling repetitive tasks, like customer service or even generating news articles.
Something robots already do and people already hate them for it[0]. I doubt anyone will empower the robot to do anything meaningful, so while it can shape a word salad with a high degree of sounding like a human being, it only sounds like a useless human being (for the thing I care about). I'd be better off looking at whatever data it has that it is supposed to be using to help me.
> People make mistakes too, y'know? So let's use these models as tools to help us, instead of trying to replace us completely.
I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes on my own, thanks. And as anyone who's ever had to train anyone can tell you, looking over someone else's work constantly doesn't exactly help you get anything done. Give me a GPT I can train myself to eventual competency and maybe it'll pay dividends, but that doesn't realistically exist today.
[0] And of course another application is to use another GPT instance to summarize the bullshit news articles that were themselves generated from a summary, or interact with the usless customer service chatbot, thereby closing the cycle of waste that has become the cornerstone of modern civilization.
This is demonstrably not true. It's saying quite a bit, yes it's rather PR-speak like, but that's how it's been trained.
> And as anyone who's ever had to train anyone can tell you, looking over someone else's work constantly doesn't exactly help you get anything done
WTF? I think the way you are thinking about this seems fundamentally bogged down by cynicism. Proof reading an article written for you is far, far speedier than writing it yourself. That's why newspaper editors a) edit, b) get someone to write for them to edit. I can review a PR far more quickly than writing the code.
> I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes on my own, thanks
But now I don't need to pay you to make mistakes, GPT will make them instead and whoever was checking on your mistakes is still useful.
> Give me a GPT I can train myself to eventual competency and maybe it'll pay dividends, but that doesn't realistically exist today.
And GPT didn't exist in the wild last year. You have just admitted this is WIP, and I see no reason not to expect progress will continue. Maybe one day we'll all have personally trained AI models that live through our whole lives with us. They'll be able to give personal life advice, around to bounce ideas off of, help you remember everything. I mean it's trivial to find revolutionary use cases for this tech. The only question is "is it possible or is there a hard wall in front of us?" I am yet to be convinced there is anything standing in the way and billions of dollars is backing that up right now.
Honestly GPT here has more insight than you do, I think that's miraculous.
It has used many words, it has said very little, none of it useful or insightful. If you see something insightful in there, I must chalk it up to very different perception of reality.
> WTF? I think the way you are thinking about this seems fundamentally bogged down by cynicism. Proof reading an article written for you is far, far speedier than writing it yourself.
Not if you keep screwing it up. Not if I can't ever trust that you even tried to source correct information. Not if your creative output is trite at best.
> You have just admitted this is WIP, and I see no reason not to expect progress will continue.
I clearly said several times that I expect the technology will get better.
This isn't a hard problem (it's a few dozen lines of code to do the bare minimum, maybe a couple of hundreds to add a reasonably full featured parser), but it involved a conversation of refining it that wasn't just "fill in this missing detail", but e.g. asking it to implement parsing of the query package in a specific language (Ruby), using a specific API, and using a specific format. Ruby ships with a DNS implementation; the ChatGPT solution looks nothing like either the standard Ruby implementation or the alternative Ruby DNS implementations I've checked.
You must know parrots with better reasoning skills than I do.
[EDIT: Note that I specifically picked this exactly because I was sceptical of how well it'd do, it's something I've done before myself, with a protocol I know well enough to be able to evaluate the code without much effort]
Not, but a tree can.
> emulate theory of mind,
Neither can Chat GPT. "Failing a Theory of Mind at the same level a 7 year old does" is no more Theory of Mind than being really good at chess is.
> or implement merge sort with pirate themed variable names.
True.
Now we are hitting an inflection point. People are realizing chatGPT is more then that.
The people getting voted down are the people saying chatGPT is just some trivial word generator. The masses are realizing that chatGPT is different.
There's just been years and years of AI buzz so people are used to downplaying it. So much so that when something genuinely intelligent is built they just fall into the same generic pattern of saying that these things are just statistical word generators because "oh it got my specific question wrong." It's biased because they are dismissing everything it gets right.