As soon as I know something is written by AI I tune out. I don't care how good it is - I'm not interested if a person didn't go through the process of writing it
How could it be verbatim the same response you got? Even if you both typed the exact same prompt, you wouldn't get the exact same answer.[0, 1]
[0] https://kagi.com/assistant/8f4cb048-3688-40f0-88b3-931286f8a...
[1] https://kagi.com/assistant/4e16664b-43d6-4b84-a256-c038b1534...
The only way I can understand that as an explanation is if your entire company can see each other's chats, and so she clicked yours and read the response you got. Is that what you're saying?
Just for reference before AI it was typical for employers of doctors to pay for a service/app called UpToDate which provided vetted info for docs like google.
Itemized Bill:
- hitting the ChatGPT button: $1
- knowing where to hit the ChatGPT button: $600k/year- Google search: free
- Having the schooling, training, and experience to evaluate the results: $300k per year
- Having the license to make it "official": $300k per year
An "expert" might use ChatGPT for the brief synopsis. It beats trying to recall something learned about a completely different sub-discipline years ago.
At best, the can attempt to recall sections of scraped information, which may happen to be the answer to a question. No different to searching the web except you instantly know the source and how much to trust it, if you search yourself. I've found LLMs tend to invent sources when queried (although that seems to be getting better), so it's slower than searching for information I already know exists.
If you have to be more of an expert than the LLM to then verify the output, it requires more careful attention than going back to the original source. Useful, but it's always writing in a different way to previous models/conversations and your own writing style.
LLMs can be used to suggest ideas and summarize sources, if you can verify and mediate it. They can be used for a potential sourcing of information (and the more data agreeing, the better). However, they cannot readily be used to accurately infer new information, so the best they can do here is guess. It would be useful if they could provide a confidence indicator for all scenarios.
I mean it's possible an expert in the field was using ChatGPT to answer questions but is seems rather stupid and improbable doesn't it? It'd be a good way to completely crash your career when found out.
I wish more people held the same opinion actually. Unfortunately, my sense is that most people don't care, they are fine with LLM generated crap
It honestly makes me want to blow my brains out
That's not to say computers can't generate beautiful things, but unless you expand the context out to include the history of how a program that can create such art came to be, the output is not meaningful. This is why people do not react well to AI art made from simply throwing prompts at a model, or writing that does not feel like it has style, struggle, or any personal flavor.
I've always believed that LLMs will be able to fake it perfectly one day. But as a music fan, no fully computer-generated music will ever bring me the range of emotion and joy that another human's story and creative process through that story does.
The level of enjoyment I get from art is looking into the artist, their background, and anything else surrounding the work that can add meaning to it for me. Even small artists have these, and it's easier than ever to connect with artists on this level thanks to the internet.
All to say is sure at a glance it may sound/look the same, but that's only part of the joy of art.
For me personally, this means that I read less on the internet and more pre-LLM books. It's a sad development nevertheless.
There’s an argument that the creator is just using AI as a tool to achieve their vision. I do not think that’s how people using AI are actually engaging with it at scale, nor is it the desired end state of people pushing AI. To put it bluntly, I think it’s cope. It’s how I try to use AI in my work but it’s not how I see people around me using it, and you don’t get the miracle results boosters proclaim from the rooftop if you use it that way.
It does seem that LLMs could avoid this detection with some superficial tweaks such as injecting poor grammar and reducing peppiness. I hope it doesn't get to the point that I have to become suspicious of all text.
Speak for yourself. Some of the most fascinating poetry I have seen was produced by GPT-3. That is to say, there was a short time period when it was genuinely thought-provoking, and it has since passed. In the age of "alignment," what you get with commerical offerings is dog shite... But this is more a statement on American labs (and to a similar extent, the Chinese whom have followed) than on "computers" in the first place. Personally, I'm looking forward to the age of computational literature, where authors like me would be empowered to engineer whole worlds, inhabited by characters ACTUALLY living in the computer. (With added option of the reader playing one of the parts.) This will radically change how we think about textual form, and I cannot wait for compute to do so.
Re: modern-day slop, well, the slop is us.
Denial of this comes from a place of ignorance; let the blinkers off and you might learn something! Slop will eventually pass, but we will remain. This is the far scarier proposition.
It's hard to imagine these feeling like characters from literature and not characters in the form of influencers / social media personalities. Characters in literature are in a highly constrained medium, and only have to do their story once. In a generated world the character needs to be constantly doing "story things". I think Jonathan Blow has an interesting talk on why video games are a bad medium for stories, which might be relevant.
Now, there's fundamental limits of the medium (as function of computation) but that's a different story.
But the human actors sometimes adlib. As well as being in control of intonation and body language. It takes a great deal of skill to portray someone else's words in a compelling and convincing manner. And for an actor I imagine it can be quite fun to do so.
I'm a huge fan of Dwarf Fortress, but the stories aren't Great without imagination from the player selectively ignoring things. Kruggsmash is able to make them compelling because he is a great author
> Kruggsmash is able to make them compelling because he is a great author
This is how all good plays come to be, from great authors. The question is whether AI could be "great," is that which I'm ill-equipped to address in any shape or form, but given some priors I would say it's more likely than not. However, I'm mostly interested in enabling the human authors themselves. For example, if you're familiar with interactive fiction, you know there's a complexity explosion going around branching. The first approximation of comp-lit is to assist with that complexity by allowing the author to de-couple story constraints from text itself. This requires a form of metatext, or hypertext, if you were to venture into Alternate reality games.
So you want sapient, and possibly sentient, beings created solely for entertainment? Their lives constrained to said entertainment? And you'd want to create them inside of a box that is even more limited than the space we live in?
My idea of godhood is to first try to live up to a moral code that I'd be happy with if I was the creation and something else was the god.
If this isn't what you meant, then yes, choose your own adventure is fun. But we can do that now with shared worlds involving other humans as co-content creators.
Sshh! If they know we've figured it out, we'll all be restarted again.
Art is something out of the norm, and it should make some sense at some clever level.
But if there was AI that truly could do that, I would love to see it, and would love to see even more of it.
It can be clearly seen, if you try to ask AI to make original jokes. These usually aren't too good, if they are good it's because they were randomly lucky somehow. It is able to come up with related analogies for the jokes, but this is just simple pattern matching of what is similar to the other thing, not insightful and clever observation.