Hacker News Reader

Comment by rikafurude21 | Hacker News Reader

Have noticed the gpt vibe as well. Lots of twitter people lately thinking theyre smart and letting gpt write tweet replies for them, and I started noticing even just a couple words in that some responses I see read like GPT text. I think this is a good thing honestly, people should develop a sense for ai text and images, the sooner the better, just like we learned recognizing online scams or shady links in general.

View on HN

And for anyone wondering:

> It's interesting to see GPT being utilized in various ways, including helping with tweet replies. Developing awareness about AI-generated content is indeed important, much like recognizing other online hazards. The more we understand its presence and capabilities, the better equipped we are to engage with it wisely.

Is what a ChatGPT reply to that might look like.

Given how widespread ChatGPT is in use now, I think eventually more people will start to write the way that ChatGPT does, even when they are not using ChatGPT.

> I think eventually more people will start to write the way that ChatGPT does, even when they are not using ChatGPT.

Definitely. For better and worse.

Probably better? The people who would write like this are the people who'd write worse if this didn't exist.

Unrelated pet peeve: I hate the word "utilize" with a passion. It's "use" with extra steps.

> I hate the word "utilize" with a passion. It's "use" with extra steps.

Boy, are you gonna hate the English language. It's a veritable treasure trove of words that appear to mean the same thing, but, on closer inspection, are jam-packed full of nuance.

That's why I like the English language. "Utilize", however, is exactly the same as "use", with no added nuance.

There is a bit of nuance. "Utilize" is more like "make use of" (as in employing something that was otherwise sitting idle) rather than the more straightforward "use".

It isn't much of a difference, but it is there.

Sure, but consider this sentence (in the comment above):

> It's interesting to see GPT being utilized in various ways, including helping with tweet replies.

Not only is "utilized" not doing any extra work there, it's arguably the wrong word to use there, as "use" fits better.

Certainly. People utilize wrong words all the time.

If I were to choose a fancier word than "used" for that particular sentence, I might go with "employed".

> "Utilize" is more like "make use of" (as in employing something that was otherwise sitting idle) rather than the more straightforward "use".

Utilize means “make practical and effective use of”, the key difference from bare “use” being the “practical and effective” part. It is particularly useful in describing situations where the “practical and effective” would otherwise be contrary to some or all readers expectation, such as when describing the use of a tool about which there are widespread doubts or, a fortiori, one which is generally perceived as a bad fit for the use case being discussed, its also useful, as in the case upthread, when discussing a broad phenomenon of use to which one is reacting, to narrow that description to exclude uses thaf otherwise fit the description provided but which are bot practical and effective.

The upthread use is both discussing a tool which is controversial in all uses and deecribing a broad phenomenon of use in a context where the narrowing od “utilize” is significant, so it seems to be very much the kind of circumstance where “utilize” is most useful and distinct from “use”.

I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective. Interesting rhythmic devices too, which seemed to counterpoint the humanity of the of the author’s compassionate soul which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other and one is left with a profound and vivid insight.

We will soon all be Vogons.

GPT-produced text reeks of stereotypies, but there’s a subtler stench to such text that I have trouble verbalizing. Some aspects I pick up on: the text is unnervingly chipper, yet impersonal; it reads like it was never meant to be read out loud; and it’s pathologically convincing.

The Uncanny Valley, just for text instead of images.

I wonder if its because or in spite of the RLHF.

Maybe it's recycling PR/Customer Support/SEO language patterns found in large parts of the training data.

> develop a sense for ai text and images You can develop a sense for GPT-4, or DALL·E 3 fine, how about GPT-6 or DALL·E 5? I used to shake my head when I was a teenager and the older generation complained how fast technology is developing, when all they meant was typewriters being replaced by x86 machines, B&W television by color, landline phones by mobile. Yet, now I start to understand what they must have felt like. I can about keep up for now, but how about in 5 or 10 years from now? I don't feel so confident.

Yeah these systems are only getting better, soon enough we wont be able to tell, but think of what that means: GPT being able to write text more complex/persuasive/interesting than the average person posting online might not be a bad thing. Even now ai text is "more intelligent" than a good chunk of things people post. If I had to choose, I'd rather read an LLMs interpretation of what someone might want to say than that person trying to formulate it themselves.

“That” is the elusive part. What is it? Was there anything to begin with? Are you assaying some meaning which was in fact never there? When someone rambles on their own, you can often tell. Harder when they have an advocate.

The most obvious tell: No "I".

I think this is largely unique to ChatGPT though, not LLMs at large. OpenAI has done a lot of fine tuning to create a specific product, which is a chatbot, not an LLM that mimics human speech.

I agree, but it seems reasonable to be concerned that the average rate of failure might be much higher than that of recognizing scams and shady links.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com