Comment by kenjackson
2 years ago
> It's just recycling things that other humans have said.
This seems false, unless you mean that everything anyone says is just words others have said in a different order.
For example, I asked ChatGPT: "Write a fictional story of if Peter Parker joined the 2016 OKC Thunder." One of my favorite parts is: "...determined to balance his superhero duties with his love of basketball. He even designed a special suit that allowed him to play without revealing his identity."
This isn't recycling... at least not in the way I think a lot of people think of recycling.
Agreed. GPT isn't recycling, regurgitating, or anything like that. It's more like remixing, which is pretty fascinating. It's like having an opinionated DJ that plays whatever you ask-ish. But, if you ask for something too edgy it just plays beat-heavy Beethoven with a Run DMC voice over, on repeat.
I do think remixing is a better word, but the point is that it's unlikely to come up with any genuinely new insights. It's just faster access to existing insights, sometimes presented intact.
What are some examples of genuinely new insights? And are they common even among average people? For example, there's the comedy skit that Harry Potter is simply Star Wars set in a wizards world (or a variation on the Hero's Journey). Is a math proof an insight or just a discovery on an existing truth?
1 reply →
Synthesizing.
But when it comes to actual knowledge and not stories, remixing is not a desirable feature. I discussed sets and the colors of fruit with ChatGPT. Every response it gave had incorrect information in it.
> He even designed a special suit that allowed him to play without revealing his identity
Which identity, ChatGPT?
Is he playing as Peter Parker and trying to hide his superhero identity (which obviously gives him unfair advantages due to spider strength/speed/reflexes/etc.) or playing as Spider-Man (which presumably would pack in the fans in spite of the obvious unfair advantages) and trying to hide his identity as Peter Parker?
Here's some context that makes it clearer:
"However, Peter's superhero identity as Spider-Man began to interfere with his basketball career. He often had to leave games early to attend to emergencies, and his secret identity was a constant source of anxiety.
Despite these challenges, Peter continued to play for the Thunder, determined to balance his superhero duties with his love of basketball. He even designed a special suit that allowed him to play without revealing his identity."
"Regurgitating" would seem to be a better description.
In fact, a near-exact description of what these systems do, per the dictionary definition of the term:
I don't think that's what it's doing. What makes you say that?
From very nature of how these systems operate - they aren't capable of "reflecting" about anything.
3 replies →
it's similar. it's a distinction of what a fact is... the full sentence may not be a fact, but it is a statistical fact that word X[1] follows X[2] most often after X[3], and most often after X[4], etc.