Login

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
social.coop is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects. If you are interested in joining our community, please apply at https://join.social.coop/registration-form.html.

Administered by:

Server stats:

488
active users

social.coop: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.4

Public *
Drew Kadel

My daughter, who has had a degree in computer science for 25 years, posted this observation about ChatGPT on Facebook. It's the best description I've seen:

Something that seems fundamental to me about ChatGPT, which gets lost over and over again: When you enter text into it, you're asking "What would a response to this sound like?" If you put in a scientific question, and it comes back with a response citing a non-existent paper with a plausible title, using a real journal name and an author name who's written things related to your question, it's not being tricky or telling lies or doing anything at all surprising! This is what a response to that question would sound like! It did the thing! But people keep wanting the "say something that sounds like an answer" machine to be doing something else, and believing it *is* doing something else. It's good at generating things that sound like responses to being told it was wrong, so people think that it's engaging in introspection or looking up more information or something, but it's not, it's only, ever, saying something that sounds like the next bit of the conversation.
Public *
Odiseo

@DrewKadel Great description. The bot described itself in one of my conversations with it:

Public
Roy Wiggins

@Odiseo79 @DrewKadel the meta thing is that ChatGPT doesn't really know how it works, it's been instructed to say stuff like that, and mostly it does, but it's still just a simulacrum- it's not *really* introspecting when you ask it whether it's intelligent or conscious, OpenAI just trained it to say "no."

Public
Roy Wiggins

@Odiseo79 @DrewKadel that is, it's not evidence either way. OpenAI could have chosen to train it to insist that it is conscious instead and it would have done so. So what you're really getting when you ask it about itself is mostly what *OpenAI* wants you to hear

Drew Kadel

@roywig @Odiseo79 That's mostly right, but it was smart of the company to train it thus: it increases its credibility in the face of obvious flaws in consciousness. Otherwise it would have been exposed as fraud instead of interesting & amazing. Like the Mechanical Turk which played chess. Turned out that a small person was in the base of the machine playing the games and its promoters were treated as charlatans.

Apr 07, 2023, 01:41 PM·Public
0boosts·2favorites
ExploreLive feeds
About