I, ChatGPT
-
@DogsB how to turn ChatGPT into r9k.
-
new Android Studio has free Gemini AI
-
-
Emergency! The French are about to bomb the Tyranids!
Who the hell put the game night books on the network again?
-
@loopback0 said in I, ChatGPT:
-
Since it's laughably bad right now...yeah, that's fair.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-tXOLGJ9A
Lawyer fired and has license suspended for using AI to write court documents. AI cited cases that don't exist.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-tXOLGJ9A
Lawyer fired and has license suspended for using AI to write court documents. AI cited cases that don't exist.
Last time this happened the lawyers only got a token fine. I’m glad there’s now real precedent.
-
Everyone who called prompt engineers been automated, take a bow.
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Everyone who called prompt engineers been automated, take a bow.
GPT is search engine with a sexy new coat of paint, news at 11.
-
-
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
GPT is search engine with a sexy new coat of paint, news at 11.
Reminds me of the plot of the 2014 movie Ex Machina.
There the AI is also built by someone who started with building a search engine, is based on that search engine core, and has a very sexy ‘coat’.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
This sounds surprisingly reasonable.
:unironic:
-But I also agree with the lawyers who object that dealing with programmers is impossible and that laws will never be exactly as clear as code.
Good to know the lawyers regard us as highly as we do them.
-
Well deserved. I get a lot of good stuff from there (usually pointing out some obscure to me part of an API). It's bad enough that the users work to prevent people from asking and answering actual questions, now they're trying to ruin the stuff that actually made it through?
-
-
@TimeBandit those attempts to defend against “hacks” remind me of ’s hilarious GUID regex bullshit trying to cover the lack of a correct parser. Never going to be secure.
-
@topspin but...but...
You just need another AI to supervise. Easy!
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Well deserved. I get a lot of good stuff from there (usually pointing out some obscure to me part of an API). It's bad enough that the users work to prevent people from asking and answering actual questions, now they're trying to ruin the stuff that actually made it through?
stack overflow and mass bannings seems to go together
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin but...but...
You just need another AI to supervise. Easy!
and another over this one to make sure
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@TimeBandit those attempts to defend against “hacks” remind me of ’s hilarious GUID regex bullshit trying to cover the lack of a correct parser. Never going to be secure.
Has anyone seen Altman and Atwood in the same room?
-
@boomzilla while SO is technically in the right as per their TOS, there is an argument to be made about the ethics of the thing - how many people contributed their answers in the hopes of helping other people, not to teach an AI to replace them?
Deletion was the only form of protest.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
teach an AI to replace them badly
Even with good training material (if that applied to SO answers), the AI won't necessarily give good answers.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla while SO is technically in the right as per their TOS, there is an argument to be made about the ethics of the thing - how many people contributed their answers in the hopes of helping other people, not to teach an AI to replace them?
Deletion was the only form of protest.
I don't see any ethical problem, this sounds ridiculous for me
-
@sockpuppet7 spoken like someone who never invested a significant amount of time into doing something you believed in, only to be told “thanks but no thanks, we got something to replace you”
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 spoken like someone who never invested a significant amount of time into doing something you believed in, only to be told “thanks but no thanks, we got something to replace you”
People should learn to not do work for free for for profit companies.
-
My r/AmItheAsshole verdict: ESH
-
@Carnage said in I, ChatGPT:
People should learn to not do work for free for for profit companies.
The idea wasn't working for free, but providing (and receiving) free help to others. Like Wikipedia.
It's licensed under Creative Commons. That this is "hosted" by a for-profit isn't really what people think about first.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Carnage said in I, ChatGPT:
People should learn to not do work for free for for profit companies.
The idea wasn't working for free, but providing (and receiving) free help to others. Like Wikipedia.
It's licensed under Creative Commons. That this is "hosted" by a for-profit isn't really what people think about first.
They probably should have. As the old saying goes, if you aren't the customer, you are the product being sold.
-
@topspin
It's exactly the same thing as if Alex would sell TDWTF content to AI training.No that would be an even worse idea. Don't.
-
-
@Luhmann that would actually be hilarious.
-
Do you want Gribnit back? Because this is how you get Gribnit.
-
@Arantor
as Leopold I said "Garbage in, garbage out"
-
@Arantor yes, exactly. Now imagine powered by Gribnit.
-
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Do you want Gribnit back?
Kinda. There was some comedy amongst the insanity.
-
@loopback0
that remark makes me wonder about your sanity
-
@loopback0 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Do you want Gribnit back?
Kinda. There was some comedy amongst the insanity.
Some say that if you chant his name thrice in front of an old monochrome CRT displaying SSDS search results, he will appear.
-
I had assumed the GPTs were already trained on Stack Overflow. Gut feeling says this might be a ploy for Ethics Points more than anything that could make a substantial difference.
Although it’s incredible how bereft of thought and effort the machine learning ecosystem has become in the midst of their bubble. Despite hitting an obvious plateau of capabilities, somehow they believe all their models need is MOAR DATA!!
If your model is still kinda shit after ingesting a million times more words than anyone could ever read in their lifetime, maybe your model actually is kinda shit.
-
@kazitor said in I, ChatGPT:
If your model is still kinda shit after ingesting a million times more words than anyone could ever read in their lifetime, maybe your model actually is kinda shit.
Wasn't overtraining actually a thing? I think there was an effect when beyond certain point, more training was making the models worse.
-
@Bulb said in I, ChatGPT:
@kazitor said in I, ChatGPT:
If your model is still kinda shit after ingesting a million times more words than anyone could ever read in their lifetime, maybe your model actually is kinda shit.
Wasn't overtraining actually a thing? I think there was an effect when beyond certain point, more training was making the models worse.
Yep.
Quality of data matters waaaay more than quantity of data.
-
@kazitor said in I, ChatGPT:
I had assumed the GPTs were already trained on Stack Overflow.
I assumed that, just like reddit, previous AIs were already trained by scraping all of it. Now they just changed their TOS to get paid for that in the future.
If you don't care that OpenAI has used your content without asking you, you probably shouldn't care that SO isn't asking you that they want a piece of the money. And if you do, well nothing's changed anyway.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla while SO is technically in the right as per their TOS, there is an argument to be made about the ethics of the thing - how many people contributed their answers in the hopes of helping other people, not to teach an AI to replace them?
Deletion was the only form of protest.
And now they get to suffer the consequences of being proper dickholes. The point of training the AI is to eventually help people, so I don't believe their motives are exactly pure here.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 spoken like someone who never invested a significant amount of time into doing something you believed in, only to be told “thanks but no thanks, we got something to replace you”
They already work hard to prevent repetitious questions, which is all the AI is going to be able to answer. It's not going to be able to answer new stuff.
-
@kazitor said in I, ChatGPT:
I had assumed the GPTs were already trained on Stack Overflow. Gut feeling says this might be a ploy for Ethics Points more than anything that could make a substantial difference.
If nothing else there's all the pirate sites that mirror SO content.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
It's not going to be able to answer new stuff.
Except it won't say so. It will make up plausible but wrong answers. Just like human SO answerers.
-
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
Has anyone seen Altman and Atwood in the same room?
I've never been in a room with either of them and I'm inclined to keep it that way.
-
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@TimeBandit those attempts to defend against “hacks” remind me of ’s hilarious GUID regex bullshit trying to cover the lack of a correct parser. Never going to be secure.
Has anyone seen Altman and Atwood in the same room?
What's funnier is the latter had a blog post about digital sharecropping.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
It's not going to be able to answer new stuff.
Except it won't say so. It will make up plausible but wrong answers. Just like human SO answerers.
For sure. Which is part of why it won't replace SO.
-
@Arantor it's free licensed, those people are wrong, and we shouldn't be limited by the feelings of crazy people