OpenAI is the pure bullshit company.
Altman's contention that they are building "artificial superintelligence": Bullshit.
Board members' cult of effective altruism: Bullshit.
Output from the machine: Bullshit.
It's all hallucinations: Pure bullshit.
@jeffjarvis there products ChatGPT and GPT4 are doing fine in the market however
@ErikJonker @jeffjarvis that doesnt mean it's not bullshit.
@f4grx @jeffjarvis ... it's problematic, risky, not useful in every context, but GPT4 is not bullshit, i have been experimenting with it myself, it has added value in certain contexts and if you know what you are doing
@ErikJonker @jeffjarvis how much do you like that these tools are just rehashing knowledge stolen from other parts of the web? As "useful" as it could be this tool has the worst ethics base in the world.
@f4grx @jeffjarvis ..we agree that there are big problems and risks, but the whole reasoning GPT4 is all bullshit i don't agree with.
@ErikJonker @f4grx @jeffjarvis
It's bullshit.
> As Frankfurt reminds us: “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth.” ChatGPT does not know the truth, as it does not know anything. It is a bullshitter par excellence.
https://www.ihs.ac.at/publications-hub/newsletter/april-newsletter-chatgpt-is-boring/
@phrees @ErikJonker @f4grx @jeffjarvis You have to assume the machine is a "someone" for that statement to apply, which is the actual bullshit.
ChatGPT is nothing more than a very powerful tool, the next version of autocorrect. It's incredibly useful in some contexts (I use it to get a huge efficiency boost in my work), and it's completely useless in other contexts, like most tools.
It's no more "bullshit" than a hammer is.
@LouisIngenthron @ErikJonker @f4grx @jeffjarvis There are plenty of "someones" involved in the bullshit. Someone built it. Someone managed it. Someone decided to train it on other people's work without asking their permission. Someone chose to profit from that and someone is going to fall flat on their face.
The tool you're using isn't a hammer, it's a shovel.
@phrees @ErikJonker @f4grx @jeffjarvis I'm surprised you didn't sprain your ankle shifting your argument that hard. Plus, there are ethical and profitable applications for the tech, especially in medicine. But enjoy your crusade.
@phrees @ErikJonker @f4grx @jeffjarvis That's a *bug*, not "bullshit". All software has bugs. They can be fixed.
@LouisIngenthron @ErikJonker @f4grx @jeffjarvis How do you debug an LLM without telling it that its output is bullshit?
@phrees Every algorithm ever written by any computer scientist ever has the exact same problem:
Put garbage in, you'll get garbage back out.
So, you debug an LLM by getting rid of the garbage in the training data. In your example above, you'd either scrub the rulers from the images entirely, or more likely you'd make sure there was an even distribution of rulers among the various diagnosis category input data sets.
@LouisIngenthron @phrees @ErikJonker @f4grx @jeffjarvis Are you talking about LLMs or neural networks? I don't think I would accept an LLM's diagnosis, but neural networks seem to be producing some uncanny results.
@jhavok Yeah, I was referring to the larger ML field.
@LouisIngenthron @ErikJonker @f4grx @jeffjarvis
Even in medicine, with tightly constrained training data, AI is totally capable of producing bullshit.
> In our dataset, images with rulers were more likely to be malignant; thus the algorithm inadvertently “learned” that rulers are malignant.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X18322930