People are speaking with ChatGPT for hours,bringing 2013's Her closer to reality
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
I do consider it a very useful tool in helping me with things that I’m already an expert on, I’m not sure how I would feel about using it for brainstorming. Maybe if you’re really just using it to speak out loud and not really listening to its responses, but if you’re using ChatGPT to learn or refine subjects that you’re not an expert on, then I think there is a very good risk that your output won’t be, well, great. But it’s not like it’s not happening, and I think it’ll be interesting to see what sort of effect that has on our society in the coming decades.
Of course the flip side of this is that search engines and various sources on the wide internet aren’t necessarily any more true than what you might gain from ChatGPT. So maybe it’s not going to be such a huge impact after all.
This is a very good point. I rarely use ChatGPT (I do not have the reflex yet to go there and some early attempt were miserable) but it helped me a lot to write some bullshit text for a presentation.
It was very good at putting together the buzzwords and the result was excellent. Since there was also some actual content in it I could check for mistakes and there were two. These were not life threatening mistakes (in the context of a corporate speech) but still.
I develop a lot as an amateur and I need to try using it for that. Right now I only use Amazon Whisperer which is great at suggesting code that I do not have to type anymore - but I did not try to have it create longer code. You gave me some ideas, thanks a lot.
Finally, I would like to use it to correct my typing. I never learned to touch type (tries about 165 times over my 30 years career in science, IT and development) but gave up after 10 minutes. This does not bother me too much as I spend a lot of time thinking rather than typing but since I watch my keyboard I have typos. Grammarly fixes some but right now I see that I typed "thater" and not "rather" and i have to go back. I would love to be corrected by the most probable word in the context of the sentence (which is almost always the first suggestion of the spellchecker.
I think humans can be amazingly knowledgeable in their own niches, but if you talk with the average person about your niche, there seems to be no limit to the amount of slight inaccuracies. I wouldn’t be surprised if ChatGPT is on average more correct when talking with it about random things.
I notice it listening to NPR though that there is a class of people who are just so worried about safety that they are only able to process the world through the lens of potential dangers.
I’m using ChatGPT 4 and love what’s coming back from it. Aside from limitations and some minor inaccuracies, it’s been great.
The mobile app on my iPhone was great on my last road trip. I told it was driving alone and I needed company and if could help me. Sure enough it offered to make small talk with me for about an hour before I got bored trying to push it more to keep me entertained. The entire time I kept thinking of the movie Her and how close this was to reality.
Something tells me Apple is going down this path by the next WWDC.
I somehow fell off the tech nerd train and wandered onto a Luddite bus. I find myself supremely uninterested in the current AI hype, especially given I realised early on that the math was beyond me, so I felt I couldn't get a proper grasp "under the hood"
But it's also very clearly possible my first conversational interactions with these systems might happen without my even realising that I'm not dealing with a human. Might have already happened.
If they add some memory persistence a la MemGPT and lower the latency slightly I think OpenAI has a huge hit on their hand.
https://www.gally.net/temp/20231013gptdiscussion/index.html
I could also learn about such topics by reading Wikipedia or other references, of course. But somehow talking interactively about them makes them more interesting and the information seems to stick with me better.
This isn’t an ideal use case for AI. You have no way of telling whether you’re learning facts or plausibly sounding fiction.
It’s also unlikely to hallucinate the same way twice so if you ask follow on questions to verify the accuracy it becomes pretty straightforward to know when it’s hallucinating.
It's especially useful, I think, for discussing and thinking about philosophical or controversial issues that do not have right or wrong answers.
I like the idea that there are no right or wrong answers in philosophy. I have been enjoying dissecting Schopenhauer’s thoughts on hedonistic utilitarianism with chat gpt
TBD on whether the architectural suggestions it suggests actually pay off in the long run but in my experience if you give it two solutions and ask it to weigh the pros and cons of those solutions it's pretty good at that. It's also decent at coming up with alternatives as well, but you have to prompt it to do that. It is totally happy to not consider any other alternatives unless you ask it to.
Oh my, meanwhile I'm too scared to type even the most generic of questions to ChatGPT. Keep in mind that your "friend" in this instance ends up being OpenAI, the company, made of bunch of people, people other than your friend.
It’s fun to speculate about GPT6, but it appears that the level of patronizing political correctness will be just as astounding.
It’s pretty good for exploring a topic. You have to double check references, but the basic orientation is useful.
Theodore Twombly: I wish I could put my arms around you. I wish I could touch you.
Samantha: How would you touch me?