I, ChatGPT
-
-
@TimeBandit said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Google really is getting worse.
Still way better than Bing
Its AI Overview nonsense isn't.
Google's AI understands the question but completely makes up the answer.
Bing Copilot (which for me at least is still separate from Bing search) misunderstands the question but provides a factual answer for what it thinks the question is.
They're both shit.
-
@loopback0 said in I, ChatGPT:
I just read the background story to this and now my diaphragm is sore, thanks Google 😡
Reddit user "Fucksmith" can die in peace now because he has achieved everything a committed shitposter could dream of.
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
Reddit user "Fucksmith" can die in peace now because he has achieved everything a committed shitposter could dream of.
Imagine the dizzying heights we could achieve if Google threw Alex a few dollars for the posts here
-
@loopback0 Every AI would commit suicide. Everybody wins
-
@TimeBandit said in I, ChatGPT:
@loopback0 Every AI would commit suicide.
Or go full . Which is just as well.
-
@TimeBandit said in I, ChatGPT:
@loopback0 Every AI would commit suicide. Everybody wins
https://wibble.news/content/the-tragic-demise-of-timebandit-a-hero-fallen-to-the-depths-of-darkness
-
@Zerosquare I feel like there is a non-zero chance of the AI committing AI-cide accidentally with ever-more levels of computation trying to understand the and having the AI equivalent of a stack overflow.
-
-
@remi said in I, ChatGPT:
This was a lady called Mrs. Milka Budimir, who was indeed a seamstress and had a website by her (first) name but as you can guess (at least in Europe, not sure if that brand is well-known in the rest of the world?) she wasn't "competing" with a clothing brand but with a chocolate brand (Milka (duh)). But it was indeed ruled that she couldn't keep using milka.fr for her business, despite this being her name.
What makes it maybe even more outrageous is that there is no overlap in brand recognition between chocolate (Milka isn't luxury high-end chocolate) and making clothes.And yet, https://www.microsoft-informatica.com/ still exists, AFAICT from their website. Good for them.
The name has always aroused great curiosity, due to the existence of the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Microsoft Corporation only came to Portugal in 1990, nine years after our company was founded, which is why the American multinational cannot use the name in our territory, so here its subsidiary has the name of MSFT.
Yeah, no. I'm sorry to break it to you, but everyone thinks Microsoft Corporation when they hear or read "Microsoft". I'm not sure many people even know you exist.
-
-
@error classic.
Edit: Really annoyed at the whispered "what the fuuuuclklk hu hu hu" in the background though. Should really get rid of them.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/06/ai-chatgpt-side-hustle/674415/
I quite like this quote
Younger generations often talk about the total fakeness of money and the surreal position of always having to collect it. Logically, they want to make money online by creating something out of nothing. And with the help of AI, they can even make money by making nothing out of nothing
I found it in this youtube video.
-
TIL:
Dare I ask how anyone even comes across these questions?
-
@kazitor how did the original “how is babby formed” become viral? Surely its originator wasn’t that imaginative.
-
@kazitor Mmmmm! Hand lotion milk! Just what I wanted!
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
Not quite related to AI, more killed by (the hands of) Google, it links to the following article about enshittification with a pinch of Dead Internet:
-
Generally what I've been thinking.
-
@topspin this exact phenomenon is likely why IGN just bought out Eurogamer and a bunch of other outlets to try to stave off the otherwise-inevitable.
-
@topspin Explains why most news sites are awash with best of articles now. znet's RSS feeds are basically an ad roll now too.
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Generally what I've been thinking.
misleading headline, it say about the work for the people that keep the AI online and etc. for people using it that is still a time saver
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Google really is getting worse.
"Search has been Google’s flagship since its inception. They have thousands of engineers working day and night on it; they update it all the time and seem to really care about it. No matter how much they ‘care’ about it though, it just seems to keep getting worse."
"A recent poll by Lifehacker.com finds that over 70% of the respondents have seen a drop in relevant results when making searches on Google."
Those two paragraphs are from an article written in January, 2011.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Generally what I've been thinking.
misleading headline, it say about the work for the people that keep the AI online and etc. for people using it that is still a time saver
Not when you have people double checking its work so that it hasn't made up something again.
-
You get what you deserve.
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Generally what I've been thinking.
misleading headline, it say about the work for the people that keep the AI online and etc. for people using it that is still a time saver
Not when you have people double checking its work so that it hasn't made up something again.
"When"
If you use it to create things that you'll take longer to check than to write yourself you're
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Generally what I've been thinking.
misleading headline, it say about the work for the people that keep the AI online and etc. for people using it that is still a time saver
Not when you have people double checking its work so that it hasn't made up something again.
"When"
If you use it to create things that you'll take longer to check than to write yourself you're
Which for far too many people is the new normal.
Only this week I’ve had to fix code checked in by someone asking Copilot how to do something and what was checked in was out of date 3 years ago. (StackOverflow by contrast gives current results when searching)
The answer, by the way, is literally in the manual for what the person was using.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Generally what I've been thinking.
misleading headline, it say about the work for the people that keep the AI online and etc. for people using it that is still a time saver
The work of the people making the AI is at least as expensive per unit worked (ok, a lot more expensive per unit worked) than the work the AI is saving on.
So there’s absolutely no way an AI can make business sense if it’s taking significantly more work effort to create and cross-check than what it would have taken to just do the work the old way.
Doubly so when you consider the very (allegedly) bright AI engineers could have just made boring VBA macros to automate the current process with all that time they spent chasing the dragon and gotten better time savings for the target work.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Which for far too many people is the new normal.
That is the same old "doing it wrong" but with AI
-
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
The work of the people making the AI is at least as expensive per unit worked (ok, a lot more expensive per unit worked) than the work the AI is saving on.
That would happen only if the work for running the AI is more expensive after it is created is more expensive, and it stops improving
There is a huge difference between gpt 3.5 and gpt 4. And a huge cost reduction to run gpt-4o compared to gpt-4. Also llama3 api cost 1/100 the price of gpt-4, and is good enough for most of the simpler stuff. That means, we'll either get an AI that solve harder problems, and/or get very cheap to run AIs
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
The work of the people making the AI is at least as expensive per unit worked (ok, a lot more expensive per unit worked) than the work the AI is saving on.
That would happen only if the work for running the AI is more expensive after it is created is more expensive, and it stops improving
There is a huge difference between gpt 3.5 and gpt 4. And a huge cost reduction to run gpt-4o compared to gpt-4. Also llama3 api cost 1/100 the price of gpt-4, and is good enough for most of the simpler stuff. That means, we'll either get an AI that solve harder problems, and/or get very cheap to run AIs
I too enjoy getting disbarred for very cheap because I replaced all my paralegals with cheap to run AIs.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Generally what I've been thinking.
misleading headline, it say about the work for the people that keep the AI online and etc. for people using it that is still a time saver
Not when you have people double checking its work so that it hasn't made up something again.
"When"
If you use it to create things that you'll take longer to check than to write yourself you're
Kind of making my point here. The expectation is that it will produce something accurate and you don't have to double check it. Now AI will create something and you have to double check its accurate so why not do it yourself.
If you hand off work to something to do but you have double check it and correct it, you're just creating more work.
-
@DogsB and as each day goes by, more evidence comes to light about how the results should be checked!
-
I wonder what they found.
-
-
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
The work of the people making the AI is at least as expensive per unit worked (ok, a lot more expensive per unit worked) than the work the AI is saving on.
That would happen only if the work for running the AI is more expensive after it is created is more expensive, and it stops improving
There is a huge difference between gpt 3.5 and gpt 4. And a huge cost reduction to run gpt-4o compared to gpt-4. Also llama3 api cost 1/100 the price of gpt-4, and is good enough for most of the simpler stuff. That means, we'll either get an AI that solve harder problems, and/or get very cheap to run AIs
I too enjoy getting disbarred for very cheap because I replaced all my paralegals with cheap to run AIs.
That would be the same than if that lawyer hired a cheap untrustworthy contractor to write that for him and didn't check. He ignored the label that say:
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Now AI will create something and you have to double check its accurate so why not do it yourself.
I use it for boilerplate that is boring to write and I can check quickly, and to discover things when it's faster to see what copilot does than google around
You'll eventually get the hang of it to know when it's worth using it and when it isn't
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Now AI will create something and you have to double check its accurate so why not do it yourself.
I use it for boilerplate that is boring to write and I can check quickly, and to discover things when it's faster to see what copilot does than google around
You'll eventually get the hang of it to know when it's worth using it and when it isn't
The problem is that the people making the "we need to use AI" decisions aren't technical (or patient) enough to get that hang. And then it's the fault of the technical people who were urging caution when the AI blows up because clearly those technical people must have sabotaged it to make themselves look prescient.
-
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
The problem is that the people making the "we need to use AI" decisions aren't technical (or patient) enough to get that hang. And then it's the fault of the technical people who were urging caution when the AI blows up because clearly those technical people must have sabotaged it to make themselves look prescient.
That's an old problem, these are the people that buy into Oracle and SAP too
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
The problem is that the people making the "we need to use AI" decisions aren't technical (or patient) enough to get that hang. And then it's the fault of the technical people who were urging caution when the AI blows up because clearly those technical people must have sabotaged it to make themselves look prescient.
That's an old problem, these are the people that buy into Oracle and SAP too
Yes, but my predecessors already lost that war and suffered the consequences. This time I have skin in the game
-
Got an unexpected @accalia here:
Illustration of the ACME Academy of Crime and Mischief logo, featuring a crest with a sly-looking fox and a magnifying glass. The background is a dark and mysterious color.
-
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
The problem is that the people making the "we need to use AI" decisions aren't technical (or patient) enough to get that hang. And then it's the fault of the technical people who were urging caution when the AI blows up because clearly those technical people must have sabotaged it to make themselves look prescient.
That's an old problem, these are the people that buy into Oracle and SAP too
Yes, but my predecessors already lost that war and suffered the consequences. This time I have skin in the game
Nobody gets fired for buying
IBMOraclegpt-4(actually they do, we'll need to update our survival tacticts)
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
If you hand off work to something to do but you have double check it and correct it, you're just creating more work.
Use it to write documentation. Don't check. You're safe, nobody RTFM
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Now AI will create something and you have to double check its accurate so why not do it yourself.
I use it for boilerplate that is boring to write and I can check quickly, and to discover things when it's faster to see what copilot does than google around
You'll eventually get the hang of it to know when it's worth using it and when it isn't
Sounds suspiciously like a "Works on my PC" answer.
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Generally what I've been thinking.
misleading headline, it say about the work for the people that keep the AI online and etc. for people using it that is still a time saver
Not when you have people double checking its work so that it hasn't made up something again.
"When"
If you use it to create things that you'll take longer to check than to write yourself you're
Kind of making my point here. The expectation is that it will produce something accurate and you don't have to double check it. Now AI will create something and you have to double check its accurate so why not do it yourself.
If you hand off work to something to do but you have double check it and correct it, you're just creating more work.
I'm not saying we're there at this point, but the key here is that the "you" who is doing the checking and the "you" who would be doing that original work could be very different people, charging very different rates.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
Generally what I've been thinking.
misleading headline, it say about the work for the people that keep the AI online and etc. for people using it that is still a time saver
Not when you have people double checking its work so that it hasn't made up something again.
"When"
If you use it to create things that you'll take longer to check than to write yourself you're
Kind of making my point here. The expectation is that it will produce something accurate and you don't have to double check it. Now AI will create something and you have to double check its accurate so why not do it yourself.
If you hand off work to something to do but you have double check it and correct it, you're just creating more work.
I'm not saying we're there at this point, but the key here is that the "you" who is doing the checking and the "you" who would be doing that original work could be very different people, charging very different rates.
Debugging is usually harder than writing code in the first place, and less fun too.
I doubt you can get someone competent to do the debugging for cheaper than someone competent to do the programming.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
Debugging is usually harder than writing code in the first place, and less fun too.
I doubt you can get someone competent to do the debugging for cheaper than someone competent to do the programming.I use it with rust. If it compiles it is bug free
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
I'm not saying we're there at this point, but the key here is that the "you" who is doing the checking and the "you" who would be doing that original work could be very different people, charging very different rates.
Yeah, and the idea is to replace both of us. I'm not overly opposed to the concept but we're a long way away from it for now. At the moment, it'll probably create more work, and corpo will fire one to do it rightish the first time. Probably the expensive one.
Someone up the thread phrased it better but we're been sold: this will get you the answer you want. The answer it's giving is to drink our own urine.
I hope we get to this promised land but for the moment I'm dubious about the current tech. The kicker is: the hallicutions are probably the more interesting part. Here's a million data points. Give me twenty potential connections I haven't thought of or might exist. People just want accurate sales reports and email summaries. It's not doing it.
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
The answer it's giving is to drink our own urine.
Hey. No one said it had to be your own urine.
-
@Zecc said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
The answer it's giving is to drink our own urine.
Hey. No one said it had to be your own urine.
I'll allow it.
-
@DogsB the potential connections are potentially fascinating, because it has more data than you or I could possibly have and noone’s apparently interested in doing anything with that.