• Seraph@fedia.io
    155·
    6 months ago

    Well, yeah. People are acting like language models are full fledged AI instead of just a parrot repeating stuff said online.

    • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
      12·
      6 months ago

      The paper actually argues otherwise, though it’s not fully settled on that conclusion, either.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      57·
      6 months ago

      Applications of these systems have been plagued by persistent inaccuracies in their output; these are often called “AI hallucinations”. We argue that these falsehoods, and the overall activity of large language models, is better understood as bullshit in the sense explored by Frankfurt (On Bullshit, Princeton, 2005)

      Now I kinda want to read On Bullshit

    • glitchdx@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      6 months ago

      fucking love that article. sums up everything wrong with AI. Unfortunately, it doesn’t touch on what AI does right: help idiots like me achieve a slight amount of competence on subjects that such people can’t be bothered with dedicating their entire lives to.

  • Nicoleism101@lemm.eeEnglish
    39·
    6 months ago

    Suddenly it dawned on me that I can plaster my CV with AI and win over actual competent people easy peasy

    What were you doing between 2020 and 23? I was working on my AI skillset. Nobody will even question me because they fucking have no idea what it is themselves but only that they want it.

    • blady_blah@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      6 months ago

      As an engineering manager, I’ve already seen cover letters and intro emails that are so obviously AI generated that it’s laughable. These should be used like you use them for writing essays, as a framework with general prompts, but filled in by yourself.

      Fake friendliness that was outsourced to an ai is worse than no friendliness at all.

      • Nicoleism101@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        I didn’t mean AI generated anything though 🙄. I meant put lots of ‘AI’ keyword in the resume in whatever way looks professional but in reality is pure bullshit

        Watch their neuron being activated as they see magic word. Gotta play the marketing game.

        You want to be AI ready? Hire me. I have spent three years working with AI and posses invaluable experience that will elevate your company into a new era of rapid development.

        • blady_blah@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          It feels like you didn’t quite understand… If you’ve ever read an AI essay, you can see some of the way they currently write. When you see facts and figures thrown in from the internet in terms of what the company does and they sound… Artificial… It’s rather obvious that it was AI written. I’m currently getting AI spam and it’s also quite easy to see and detect. It’s the same thing.

          Someone used an AI tool to write a cover letter and sent it to me. I’ve seen this a few times. It seems very obvious when you come across it.

          I’m sure it’ll get better in the future, but right now it needs massaging in order to sound real. There’s a very obvious uncanny valley that exists with some AI writing. That’s what I’m talking about.

          • Nicoleism101@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            Okay but we are talking about two different things which is fine by me of course but it is a little tricky. I agree though on that second topic

    • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      6 months ago

      It’s extremely easy to detect this. Recruiters actively filter out resumes like this for important roles.

  • glitchdx@lemmy.worldEnglish
    33·
    6 months ago

    There are things that chatgpt does well, especially if you temper your expectations to the level of someone who has no valuable skills and is mostly an idiot.

    Hi, I’m an idiot with no valuable skills, and I’ve found chatgpt to be very useful.

    I’ve recently started learning game development in godot, and the process of figuring out why the code that chatgpt gives me doesn’t work has taught me more about programming than any teacher ever accomplished back in high school.

    Chatgpt is also an excellent therapist, and has helped me deal with mental breakdowns on multiple occasions, while it was happening. I can’t find a real therapist’s phone number, much less schedule an appointment.

    I’m a real shitty writer, and I’m making a wiki of lore for a setting and ruleset for a tabletop RPG that I’ll probably never get to actually play. ChatGPT is able to turn my inane ramblings into coherent wiki pages, most of the time.

    If you set your expectations to what was advertised, then yeah, chatgpt is bullshit. Of course it was bullshit, and everyone who knew half of anything about anything called it. If you set realistic expectations, you’ll get realistic results. Why is this so hard for people to get?

    • dmalteseknight@programming.devEnglish
      19·
      6 months ago

      Yeah it is as if someone invented the microwave oven and everyone over hypes it as being able to cook Michelin star meals. People then dismiss it entirely since it cannot produce said Michelin star meals.

      They fail to see that is a great reheating machine and a good machine for quick meals.

      • oo1@lemmings.worldEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        Intelligence is a very loaded word and not very precise in general usage. And i mean that amongst humans and animals as well as robots.

        I’m sure the real AI and compsci researchers have precise terms and taxonomies for it and ways to measure it, but the word itself, in the hands of marketing people and the general population as an audience . . . not useful.

  • shameless@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    6 months ago

    Just reading the intro pulls you in

    We draw a distinction between two sorts of bullshit, which we call ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bullshit

  • fckreddit@lemmy.mlEnglish
    21·
    6 months ago

    This is something I already mentioned previously. LLMs have no way of fact checking, no measure of truth or falsity built into. In the training process, it probably accepts every piece of text as true. This is very different from how our minds work. When faced with a piece of text we have many ways to deal with it, which range from accepting it as it is to going on the internet to verify it to actually designing and conducting experiments to prove or disprove the claim. So, yeah what ChatGPT outputs is probably bullshit.

    Of course, the solution is that ChatGPT be trained by labelling text with some measure of truth. Of course, LLMs need so much data that labelling it all would be extremely slow and expensive and suddenly, the fast moving world of AI to screech to almost a halt, which would be unacceptable to the investors.

      • fckreddit@lemmy.mlEnglish
        3·
        6 months ago

        Why do you even think that? Children don’t ask questions? Don’t try to find answers?

        • MenacingPerson@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          Sure they do. But they also trust adults a lot. Children try to find answers only because they have stimulus other than humans telling them things, but if that stimulus is missing, they will believe the adult. The environments that AI “grow up” in are different, but they are very similar from a mental perspective.

          How many times have you heard the story of something hearing something false from a family member and holding it close to their heart for years?

          • fckreddit@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            Now that I think about children develop critical thinking at around the age of 10. Perhaps you are right. But, the question remains, will LLMs develop such critical thinking on it’s own or are we still missing something?

    • iamkindasomeone@feddit.deEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      Your statement on no way of fact checking is not a 100% correct as developers found ways to ground LLMs, e.g., by prepending context pulled from „real time“ sources of truth (e.g., search engines). This data is then incorporated into the prompt as context data. Well obviously this is kind of cheating and not baked into the LLM itself, however it can be pretty accurate for a lot of use cases.

      • fckreddit@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        Does using authoritative sources is fool proof? For example, is everything written in Wikipedia factually correct? I don’t believe so unless I actually check it. Also, what about reddit or stack overflow? Can they be considered factually correct? To some extent, yes. But not completely. That is why most of these LLMs give such arbitrary answers. They extrapolate on information they have no way knowing or understanding.

        • iamkindasomeone@feddit.deEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          I don’t quite understand what you mean by extrapolate on information. LLMs have no model of what an information or the truth is. However, factual information can be passed into the context, the way Bing does it.

  • Sibbo@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    15·
    6 months ago

    Because these programs cannot themselves be concerned with truth, and because they are designed to produce text that looks truth-apt without any actual concern for truth, it seems appropriate to call their outputs bullshit.

    This is actually a really nice insight on the quality of the output of current LLMs. And it teaches about how they work and what the goals given by their creators are.

    They are but trained to produce factual information, but to talk about topics while sounding like a competent expert.

    For LLM researchers this means that they need to figure out how to train LLMs for factuality as opposed to just sounding competent. But that is probably a lot easier said than done.

  • julianschmulianEnglish
    6·
    6 months ago

    clearly they have never heard of harry g frankfurts (excellent) „on bullshit“

    • GrabtharsHammer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      87·
      6 months ago

      The paper explicitly states that they are calling ChatGPT “bullshit” in the Frankfurtian sense and they cite “On Bullshit” as the source for that definition. It’s right there in the introduction.

      You’d know this if you had read the paper or even checked whether your statement were true. So either you read it and then lied deliberately, or you didn’t read the paper nor actually care about the truth value of your own statement, rendering your comment itself bullshit in the Frankfurtian sense.

  • Psythik@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    6 months ago

    Can we please keep the AI hate in the fuck_ai community so that I don’t have to see it?

    I don’t care what Lemmy thinks, ChatGPT has improved my life for the better. I utilize it every day.