ChatGPT

[Roboramma]

I've been seeing a lot about the new ChatGPT and it seems pretty impressive.

Here's the website: https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

Currently it's free to use, so you can play around with it.

Here's a fun example of it's responses to some questions:

https://marginalrevolution.com/margi...the-chief.html

Quote:

How can we reduce housing prices?

Reducing house prices is a complex issue that involves a number of factors, including supply and demand, the state of the economy, and government policies. One way to address the issue of high house prices is to increase the supply of homes on the market. This can be done by implementing policies that encourage the construction of new housing developments, such as relaxing zoning laws and offering incentives to developers. Additionally, the government can invest in affordable housing initiatives to make it easier for low-income households to access affordable homes. Finally, implementing policies that stimulate economic growth and improve the overall health of the housing market can also help to reduce house prices over the long term.

It seems to give relatively accurate, relevant, and coherent responses to questions.

I saw a nice one on twitter where it gave a solid answer to questions on the historical impact of electrification on economic growth.

[zooterkin]

A friend of mine apparently broke it by asking, “Why is a duck?”

[Darat]

Here we go

Quote:

What does the international skeptics forum discuss?

I am not able to access information about specific events or organizations, so I don't have any information about the International Skeptics Forum or what they discuss. Skepticism is a general term that refers to the attitude or practice of questioning or doubting certain claims or beliefs. Skeptics often focus on evaluating claims and arguments in order to determine their validity or credibility, and may discuss a wide range of topics that are relevant to this process. These topics could include science, philosophy, psychology, religion, and many others. However, without more specific information, it's impossible for me to say what the International Skeptics Forum specifically focuses on.

[Darat]

A duck

Quote:

Why is a duck?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. Ducks are a type of bird that belong to the family Anatidae, which also includes geese and swans. They are aquatic birds that are found on every continent except Antarctica. Ducks are known for their webbed feet, which help them swim, and their waterproof feathers, which keep them warm and dry. They are also known for their quacking vocalizations.

Given what it is meant to be they are impressive answers.

[Darat]

Was wondering given it is USA based how it might fair for a potential civil litigation style question:

Quote:

Which is the best dog for a family with young children?

When choosing a dog for a family with young children, it's important to consider the size and temperament of the dog. Smaller breeds, such as pugs or miniature schnauzers, may be a good choice because they are generally gentle and can be well-suited to family life. Medium-sized breeds, such as golden retrievers or labradors, are also good choices because they are typically friendly and good with children. It's important to remember that every dog is an individual and may have its own unique personality and characteristics, so it's best to carefully research and evaluate any dog before bringing it into your home.

[Darat]

Interesting article - they tried to get it to answer a GCSE history exam https://inews.co.uk/news/education/w...-essay-2013269

Not bad.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Darat

A duck



Given what it is meant to be they are impressive answers.

They must have fixed it, he got an error message.

[Roboramma]

Thanks Darat, those are pretty cool!

[Darat]

I’m impressed by it, been trying a few more queries, I can see why they are saying it will be the future of searching.

I do find that slightly worrying as it may make it too easy! Plus of course how is its knowledge base verified, there are already reports (as can be seen above) about accuracy? Given such well phrased answers I suspect we will be less skeptical about its answers.

[Puppycow]

Apparently it is overwhelmed right now. I wasn't able to chat with it.

I would like to ask it if it is sentient.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Apparently it is overwhelmed right now. I wasn't able to chat with it.

I would like to ask it if it is sentient.

If it said "No," that would demonstrate a great deal of self-awareness.

[Puppycow]

Tried again. Still "at capacity".

[marting]

Stackoverflow, a site where users ask/answer programming questions, has temporarily banned stuff from ChatGPT. Here's their main reason:

Quote:

Overall, because the average rate of getting correct answers from ChatGPT is too low, the posting of answers created by ChatGPT is substantially harmful to the site and to users who are asking or looking for correct answers.

The primary problem is that while the answers which ChatGPT produces have a high rate of being incorrect, they typically look like they might be good and the answers are very easy to produce.

[Apathia]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

A friend of mine apparently broke it by asking, “Why is a duck?”

That question breaks me.

[marting]

Here's a guy that thinks it will replace most knowledge workers within 5 years.

https://youtu.be/1hHfoB4mSrQ

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by marting

Here's a guy that thinks it will replace most knowledge workers within 5 years.

https://youtu.be/1hHfoB4mSrQ

I think that's going too far. I do think it's likely to have an impact, but not by replacing knowledge workers, but by making them more productive as it takes over particular tasks. By "it" I'm talking about LLMs in general rather than ChatGPT in particular of course.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by marting

Stackoverflow, a site where users ask/answer programming questions, has temporarily banned stuff from ChatGPT. Here's their main reason:

That matches with the fear I posted about earlier.

Is there anyway for the "knowledge base" to be verified? There probably isn't since these aren't simple "look up" tables of information.

[marting]

Originally Posted by Darat

That matches with the fear I posted about earlier.

Is there anyway for the "knowledge base" to be verified? There probably isn't since these aren't simple "look up" tables of information.

There are rather broad implications for this kind of AI. From education on out. Will these become arbiters of "truth" de facto even if not in a legal sense? Who watches the watchers? Truly disruptive tech.

We certainly do live in interesting times.

[Darat]

Here's an interesting use - ask ChatGPT about a fantastical way to decorate your living room.

Then plug ChatGPT's responses into MidJourney and hey presto!

[Darat]

Interesting short opinion piece from The Register.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/...he_confidence/

Really like the phrase “.. out. It’s a Dunning-Kruger effect knowledge simulator par excellence. It doesn’t know what it’s talking about, and it doesn’t care because we haven’t learned how to do that bit yet…

Quote:

Is chatgpt a Dunning-Kruger effect knowledge simulator par excellence?

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with chatgpt or a Dunning-Kruger effect knowledge simulator. As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I can provide information on a wide range of topics, but I don't have specific knowledge or information about ChatGPG or a Dunning-Kruger effect knowledge simulator.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Darat

Here's an interesting use - ask ChatGPT about a fantastical way to decorate your living room.

Then plug ChatGPT's responses into MidJourney and hey presto!

Apparently this guy wrote and published an illustrated children's book with the help of ChatGPT and Midjourney over the course of a weekend.

(does that link work? my VPN's not connecting today, so I can't check).

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Darat

That matches with the fear I posted about earlier.

Is there anyway for the "knowledge base" to be verified? There probably isn't since these aren't simple "look up" tables of information.

Maybe they can make it add footnotes with links to the sources?

Like everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be backed up with citations (in principle, if not always in practice).

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Apparently this guy wrote and published an illustrated children's book with the help of ChatGPT and Midjourney over the course of a weekend.

(does that link work? my VPN's not connecting today, so I can't check).

The link works for me.

I wonder who owns the copyright? I assume, not the AI or those who programmed the AI? Just as those who invented the camera and made the camera don't own any part of the rights to photographs taken with the camera, even though their work and ideas had something to do with the final result.

The AI-produced art learns from example from human artists, who derive no benefit therefrom. ("Art" here including both illustrations and the written word. ETA: and music too.)

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The link works for me.

Thanks!

Quote:

I wonder who owns the copyright? I assume, not the AI or those who programmed the AI? Just as those who invented the camera and made the camera don't own any part of the rights to photographs taken with the camera, even though their work and ideas had something to do with the final result.

The AI-produced art learns from example from human artists, who derive no benefit therefrom. ("Art" here including both illustrations and the written word.)

I sort of agree with this take (it's from the substack post where I saw this mentioned):

Quote:

The negative reactions seem pretty misplaced. Some people accused the guy of “stealing” the work of other artists, because AI art programs often train themselves on copyrighted data. But that seems no different than a human artist gathering inspiration from looking at other people’s works. And we should celebrate tools that open up creative fields to more people; without AI, what are the chances this guy would have created a children’s book on his own?

Anyway, I think that co-authorship is exactly the right model for what a lot of human beings are going to be doing with these new AI tools.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I sort of agree with this take (it's from the substack post where I saw this mentioned):

Quote:

The negative reactions seem pretty misplaced. Some people accused the guy of “stealing” the work of other artists, because AI art programs often train themselves on copyrighted data. But that seems no different than a human artist gathering inspiration from looking at other people’s works.

Yeah, that feels a little bit hand-wavy to me. I don't think it's the same thing as a human artist gathering inspiration from looking at other people’s works. A human artist might take inspiration from the works of others, but if all they do is mimic another artist's style, they won't get much recognition for originality. They have to add their own creative features. I guess the net benefit is higher to humanity, arguably. A novice, with assistance from AI, could create something like a children's book or many other things I guess that they wouldn't be able to create on their own.

It's a little bit like a performance-enhancing drug. If you are a sports fan, do you really care how an athlete achieves their mastery? Like Barry Bonds (baseball player) cheated, but he attained a level of hitting prowess that had never been seen before or since (at least in some statistical categories such as home runs, slugging percentage and on-base percentage). Should it be celebrated or condemned because he used performance-enhancing drugs to achieve that result? AI or technology in general is sort of like that: it can enable people to do things that they could not otherwise achieve.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The link works for me.

I wonder who owns the copyright? I assume, not the AI or those who programmed the AI? Just as those who invented the camera and made the camera don't own any part of the rights to photographs taken with the camera, even though their work and ideas had something to do with the final result.

The AI-produced art learns from example from human artists, who derive no benefit therefrom. ("Art" here including both illustrations and the written word. ETA: and music too.)

As do human artists.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Yeah, that feels a little bit hand-wavy to me. I don't think it's the same thing as a human artist gathering inspiration from looking at other people’s works. A human artist might take inspiration from the works of others, but if all they do is mimic another artist's style, they won't get much recognition for originality. They have to add their own creative features. I guess the net benefit is higher to humanity, arguably. A novice, with assistance from AI, could create something like a children's book or many other things I guess that they wouldn't be able to create on their own.

It's a little bit like a performance-enhancing drug. If you are a sports fan, do you really care how an athlete achieves their mastery? Like Barry Bonds (baseball player) cheated, but he attained a level of hitting prowess that had never been seen before or since (at least in some statistical categories such as home runs, slugging percentage and on-base percentage). Should it be celebrated or condemned because he used performance-enhancing drugs to achieve that result? AI or technology in general is sort of like that: it can enable people to do things that they could not otherwise achieve.

I think I can call myself an artist - I have in the past made part of my living from being an artist - but what I was doing was what the AI produced for the book illustrator i.e. art on demand and to a spec. I really don't see a difference. You'd get a brief something like "A portrait of a political leader with a moustache and have him look something like Dan Dare from the original Eagle comic strips and in the style of a western wanted poster." And off you'd go. There's no issue with copyright in such commercial work - the copyright is (usually) assigned to the person paying.

All we are seeing is "automation" of another category of human work, I'm surprised how quickly it is happening, I thought the next major automation was going to be in "experts" such as medical professionals - I suppose there is an inherent and understandable resistance in that field but we need to get past that as quick as possible.

One of the experts in Photoshop that I follow on his Youtube channel had a great tip for how to use nascent image AI when removing something from a photo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK1lsnWEbj8 Is that "cheating"? Is that somehow wrong because you aren't "drawing"? I don't see that as anymore "not art" than every other piece of technology a modern artist has access to.



Out of curiosity I just shoved that "Politician brief" without any editing into Midjourney to see what it would make of it.



I don't think that's a bad first stab.

[I Am The Scum]

Is it time for an AI Art debate in the philosophy forum?

[Roboramma]

This is pretty funny:

https://twitter.com/peterwildeford/s...21505279184897

Quote:

Speaking to ChatGPT in perfect Danish, while it insists throughout that it can't speak or understand Danish.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Apparently it is overwhelmed right now. I wasn't able to chat with it.

I would like to ask it if it is sentient.

Finally got through. Here is its answer:

Quote:

I am a large language model trained by OpenAI. I am not sentient. I am a machine learning model that has been trained to generate text, but I do not have consciousness or the ability to think or reason like a human. I am only able to provide information and answers based on the data that I have been trained on. Is there something specific you would like to know? I would be happy to help you to the best of my ability.

Good answer

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It is impressive. I watched a Starcraft2 player who asked it for pvp strategy and it came up with something reasonably workable.
Given that the bot is in no way programmed for that.

[Mike Helland]

Given that it's just a language bot and not a wolfram alpha type thing, this is understandable, but kinda funny:

Can you explain the distance modulus in cosmology?

In cosmology, the distance modulus is a way of expressing the distance to a celestial object in terms of its apparent brightness. It is defined as the difference between the apparent magnitude of the object and its absolute magnitude. The absolute magnitude of an object is the brightness it would have if it were viewed from a distance of 10 parsecs (32.6 light-years), while the apparent magnitude is the actual brightness of the object as it is viewed from Earth. The distance modulus is often used in conjunction with the concept of the luminosity distance, which is a measure of the distance to an object based on its observed brightness and intrinsic luminosity.


What's the difference between intrinsic luminosity and absolute brightness?

Intrinsic luminosity is the amount of light or electromagnetic radiation that an object emits, and it is an inherent characteristic of the object. Absolute brightness, on the other hand, is the apparent brightness of an object as it would be seen from a distance of 10 parsecs (32.6 light-years). It is a measure of the object's intrinsic luminosity that takes into account the distance at which the object is being viewed.


How do you convert distance modulus to luminosity distance?

The distance modulus and the luminosity distance are related by the following equation:

luminosity distance = 10^((distance modulus + 5)/5)

This equation can be used to convert the distance modulus of an object to its luminosity distance, which is a measure of the distance to the object based on its observed brightness and intrinsic luminosity.


Is 10^(distance modulus/5+1) also valid?

No, the correct equation for converting the distance modulus to the luminosity distance is:

luminosity distance = 10^((distance modulus + 5)/5)

The equation you provided, 10^(distance modulus/5+1), is not correct because it does not correctly account for the difference between the apparent magnitude and absolute magnitude of the object. The distance modulus is defined as the difference between these two quantities, so it must be added to 5 in order to obtain the luminosity distance.


Does (x+5)/5 = x/5+1?

No, this is not a valid mathematical statement. In general, the order in which arithmetic operations are performed matters, and changing the order can change the result. In this case, the expression (x+5)/5 is not equal to x/5+1, because the division by 5 is performed before the addition of 1 in the second expression, while in the first expression the division by 5 is performed after the addition of 5.


x/5+1 = x/5 + 5/5

Yes, this is a valid mathematical statement. In this case, the addition of 1 to the expression x/5 is equivalent to adding 5/5 to the same expression, because both operations result in the same final value. This is because 1 and 5/5 are both equivalent to the number 1, so adding either of these to x/5 will produce the same result.


x/5 + 5/5 = (x+5)/5

Yes, this is a valid mathematical statement. In this case, the expression x/5 + 5/5 is equivalent to the expression (x+5)/5, because both expressions represent the same mathematical operation: dividing the sum of x and 5 by 5. Because the order in which arithmetic operations are performed does not affect the result, the two expressions are equivalent.


x/5+1=x/5 + 5/5=(x+5)/5

Yes, this is a valid mathematical statement. In this case, the expressions x/5+1 and (x+5)/5 are equivalent, because they both represent the same mathematical operation: dividing the sum of x and 5 by 5. Additionally, the expression x/5 + 5/5 is also equivalent to (x+5)/5, because it represents the same operation. Because all three expressions are equivalent, they can be used interchangeably in any mathematical expression.


So x/5+1 = (x+5)/5

No, this is not a valid mathematical statement. As I mentioned earlier, the order in which arithmetic operations are performed matters, and changing the order can change the result. In this case, the expression x/5+1 is not equal to (x+5)/5, because the division by 5 is performed before the addition of 1 in the first expression, while in the second expression the division by 5 is performed after the addition of 5. These two expressions are not equivalent, and cannot be used interchangeably in mathematical expressions.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I've played with it a bit more and it's reasonably competent at answering high school chemistry questions, provided it does not have to solve chemical equations on its own.

It's fun to see how far we have gotten so far.

[I Am The Scum]

I saw a screenshot showing that Chatgpt failed the bat and ball riddle. If I'm understanding how this works, it's basically just repeating the types of answers that most people give to certain types of questions, which would include common misconceptions. (yes, I'm oversimplifying a bit)

Makes me wonder how it would respond to the Monty Haul problem, or Newcomb's paradox.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Apparently this guy wrote and published an illustrated children's book with the help of ChatGPT and Midjourney over the course of a weekend.

(does that link work? my VPN's not connecting today, so I can't check).

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the result falls right into the centre of the uncanny valley!

Some of those images gave me involuntary shudders.

[Blue Mountain]

Why do these ******** want a PHONE NUMBER before I can interact with it?

No god-damned way am I going to give up my phone number to an unknown entity.

Why do companies insist on privacy violations like this?

And is the legal in the EU? (Maybe someone who's less concerned for their privacy can ask ChatGPT this question.)

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Why do these ******** want a PHONE NUMBER before I can interact with it?

To stop 'bots clogging up their bandwidth.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

No god-damned way am I going to give up my phone number to an unknown entity.

You have a phone that tracks you 24/7 and are shy about giving a phone number to a reasonably reputable organisation.

Seems legit.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Why do companies insist on privacy violations like this?

How is it a privacy violation? That's incoherent.

It asks you to provide information. You chose not to. No violation.

And if you do give the information voluntarily, it's obvious not a violation.

Are you new to this internet thing?

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

And is the legal in the EU?

Yes.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

To stop 'bots clogging up their bandwidth.

Also they can tell where you are. It won't let me use it because I've got a Chinese phone number. Makes sense, though.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

To stop 'bots clogging up their bandwidth.

They're already asking for a verified email address and they have a damned Google RECAPTCHA to fight that. I had to go through those two hoops even before I got the phone number prompt.

Quote:

You have a phone that tracks you 24/7 and are shy about giving a phone number to a reasonably reputable organisation. Seems legit.

Non sequitur. I could challenge you to show I have such a device. Further, the details of said tracking are available only to people who can issue subpoenas.

And How do I know this company is reputable? Is it because they have a web site? Theranos looked like a reputable outfit before it crashed and burned.

Quote:

How is it a privacy violation? That's incoherent.

It's known as PII, or personally identifiable information. The phone number unambiguously ties the account to me, even if I wanted to be anonymous by connecting through a VPN.

Quote:

It asks you to provide information. You chose not to. No violation.
And if you do give the information voluntarily, it's obvious not a violation.

There is no legitimate business reason for them to know my phone number. Therefore even asking for it is a violation of privacy.

Quote:

Are you new to this internet thing?

There is no need to be insulting. Just because you don't seem to care about a lot of things doesn't mean other people aren't. There is far too much tacking of stuff on the web as it is, and I see no reason to hand PII to unverified third parties on a silver platter.

Quote:

Yes.

Citation needed. My understanding of the GDPR is unless there is a legitimate reason to have the information it is not legal to ask for it or store it. Canada has similar legislation, but it's not as tough. The USA seems to think people have no right to privacy.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Why do these ******** want a PHONE NUMBER before I can interact with it?

No god-damned way am I going to give up my phone number to an unknown entity.

Why do companies insist on privacy violations like this?

And is the legal in the EU? (Maybe someone who's less concerned for their privacy can ask ChatGPT this question.)

Entirely legal in the EU and even in the UK non-EU fortress of solitude.

I used one of my google accounts to log in so wasn't asked for anything else.