Author Topic: ChatGPT  (Read 11340 times)

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1600
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #50 on: February 01, 2023, 08:51:35 AM »

I will admit that I've been thinking on this a bit more. In my naive, earnest eyes, essays, homework assignments, and the like are there to evaluate whether a student has learned the material they should. Poor marks would indicate where additional study is required, which is tested again on exams. All of this to make sure the student, ostensibly at a university to acquire knowledge, gets their money worth.

My scoffing at an essay earning even a lowly C with zero effort is unwarranted if people are seriously cheating their way through entire degrees. But then, I wonder, what's the point? It says something far more damning about our society than the individual if cheating one's way through a university degree while acquiring no knowledge is a worthwhile strategy.

This is the consequence of pointlessly gatekeeping jobs with degrees that have no need to be set in such a way. People are simply reacting to the market forces where a large number of jobs say you need a degree to work here (even though none of the expectations or responsibilities really warrant it), but what the degree is in doesn't really matter all that much.

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1600
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2023, 08:54:34 AM »
Nothing to worry about folks. This is fine.

https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/1598288519301976064
The real thing that I worry about here is that people actually seem to be attributing some sort of volition or underlying understanding of the concepts written to ChatGPT when it's just predicting the next words that would make sense to a human from the prompt. Our tendency to anthropomorphize and attribute a generally high intelligence to well written words is a real blind spot that even highly intelligent people are unlikely to have good defenses against at this point.

So basically Searle's Chinese Room:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2023, 09:26:57 AM »
Nothing to worry about folks. This is fine.

https://twitter.com/alicemazzy/status/1598288519301976064
The real thing that I worry about here is that people actually seem to be attributing some sort of volition or underlying understanding of the concepts written to ChatGPT when it's just predicting the next words that would make sense to a human from the prompt. Our tendency to anthropomorphize and attribute a generally high intelligence to well written words is a real blind spot that even highly intelligent people are unlikely to have good defenses against at this point.

So basically Searle's Chinese Room:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Yes, this exactly.

ChatGPT is effectively very complicated plagiarism program - it incorporates multiple sources and many subtle ways of copying existing data so it's hard for people to detect.  There's no guiding intelligence though, just lots of underlying pattern matching.

Financial.Velociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Living Universe Foundation
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2023, 09:43:24 AM »
I saw ChatGPT described yesterday as "Mansplaining as a Service".  Follow up comment labeled it Botsplaining.  Made me laugh.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2023, 12:41:13 PM »
Did anyone see the recent live TV interview with Andrew Yang?  The moderator asked a few questions, and then said she had asked ChatGPT to answer one of the same questions as if it were Andrew Yang himself answering.   
Yang looked a little surprised but he was a good sport, and after she read ChatGPT's response, he said it sounded like a High School Senior/College Freshman level of what he would say. 
And interestingly, the question involved the future of the job market with AI becoming increasingly more sophisticated.

I didn't but I'd be really interested to try to dig it up to watch. Do you remember what network/service the interview was on, @LaineyAZ?


Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3377
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2023, 09:30:30 PM »
I used ChatGPT this week for the first time to write some blog articles and blog titles.

In some cases it gave incorrect info but overall it did ok. It didn't produce an article that I could copy and paste directly but where it's useful to me is saving a bunch of work structuring a piece and getting the background in there. The generic intros and conclusions are fine and ready to use. I've still got to provide local context/examples - it couldn't include Australian examples.

It's saved me a few hours though and allows me to spend more time on more thoughtful or investigatory pieces that the bot wouldn't be able to do.

I used DALL-E as well where I need images. That was 50/50. In one case I just didn't like what it produced but I couldn't improve the instructions to make it better which was frustrating. And if you like something, you can't say, "do that again in exactly the same style but illustrating this new scene". Like if you wanted a series of icons or illustrations all in the same style & colour scheme.

Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2023, 11:12:40 PM »
PTF

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #57 on: February 02, 2023, 07:26:06 AM »
I used ChatGPT this week for the first time to write some blog articles and blog titles.

In some cases it gave incorrect info but overall it did ok. It didn't produce an article that I could copy and paste directly but where it's useful to me is saving a bunch of work structuring a piece and getting the background in there. The generic intros and conclusions are fine and ready to use. I've still got to provide local context/examples - it couldn't include Australian examples.

It's saved me a few hours though and allows me to spend more time on more thoughtful or investigatory pieces that the bot wouldn't be able to do.

I used DALL-E as well where I need images. That was 50/50. In one case I just didn't like what it produced but I couldn't improve the instructions to make it better which was frustrating. And if you like something, you can't say, "do that again in exactly the same style but illustrating this new scene". Like if you wanted a series of icons or illustrations all in the same style & colour scheme.

I am not looking forward to the coming endless slosh of mediocre computer written shit articles on every subject imaginable that ChatGPT is sure to usher in.  Might actually herald the end of the information age.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17602
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #58 on: February 02, 2023, 07:34:53 AM »
I used ChatGPT this week for the first time to write some blog articles and blog titles.

In some cases it gave incorrect info but overall it did ok. It didn't produce an article that I could copy and paste directly but where it's useful to me is saving a bunch of work structuring a piece and getting the background in there. The generic intros and conclusions are fine and ready to use. I've still got to provide local context/examples - it couldn't include Australian examples.

It's saved me a few hours though and allows me to spend more time on more thoughtful or investigatory pieces that the bot wouldn't be able to do.

I used DALL-E as well where I need images. That was 50/50. In one case I just didn't like what it produced but I couldn't improve the instructions to make it better which was frustrating. And if you like something, you can't say, "do that again in exactly the same style but illustrating this new scene". Like if you wanted a series of icons or illustrations all in the same style & colour scheme.

I am not looking forward to the coming endless slosh of mediocre computer written shit articles on every subject imaginable that ChatGPT is sure to usher in.  Might actually herald the end of the information age.

Don't these already exist??

I constantly get ads on FB for AI to write articles for me, so it's already a thing. It's seems pretty obvious that AI is writing tons of the listicle type content flooding FB. Being stuck in bed this past month I've clicked on a few out of sheer boredom and thought "there's no way a human wrote this copy."

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #59 on: February 02, 2023, 08:07:23 AM »
I am not looking forward to the coming endless slosh of mediocre computer written shit articles on every subject imaginable that ChatGPT is sure to usher in.  Might actually herald the end of the information age.

Have you tried looking for information on any (non-technical) topic on google/bing/etc recently? We didn't need AI to end the information age. Ad supported business models that incentivize zero-information-content content-farms full of human written filler text are doing an excellent job of that on their own.

ChatGPT articles on the same topics are a step up.

LaineyAZ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2023, 08:17:25 AM »
Did anyone see the recent live TV interview with Andrew Yang?  The moderator asked a few questions, and then said she had asked ChatGPT to answer one of the same questions as if it were Andrew Yang himself answering.   
Yang looked a little surprised but he was a good sport, and after she read ChatGPT's response, he said it sounded like a High School Senior/College Freshman level of what he would say. 
And interestingly, the question involved the future of the job market with AI becoming increasingly more sophisticated.

I didn't but I'd be really interested to try to dig it up to watch. Do you remember what network/service the interview was on, @LaineyAZ?

It was a female desk anchor on a morning news show but I don't recall the channel - maybe CBS, or CNN?   I don't follow Yang on social media but I wonder if he's mentioned it himself somewhere..

Fresh Bread

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3377
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2023, 12:50:36 PM »
I used ChatGPT this week for the first time to write some blog articles and blog titles.

In some cases it gave incorrect info but overall it did ok. It didn't produce an article that I could copy and paste directly but where it's useful to me is saving a bunch of work structuring a piece and getting the background in there. The generic intros and conclusions are fine and ready to use. I've still got to provide local context/examples - it couldn't include Australian examples.

It's saved me a few hours though and allows me to spend more time on more thoughtful or investigatory pieces that the bot wouldn't be able to do.

I used DALL-E as well where I need images. That was 50/50. In one case I just didn't like what it produced but I couldn't improve the instructions to make it better which was frustrating. And if you like something, you can't say, "do that again in exactly the same style but illustrating this new scene". Like if you wanted a series of icons or illustrations all in the same style & colour scheme.

I am not looking forward to the coming endless slosh of mediocre computer written shit articles on every subject imaginable that ChatGPT is sure to usher in.  Might actually herald the end of the information age.

So currently there's a whole load of people who make money by creating websites on a topic that's highly searched for and filling it with key word loaded articles. They don't sell anything, they make money from the ads. They own hundreds of websites. Currently these articles are written by a host of VA type people off shore that are found via sites like Upwork.

I don't have these types of website as it's a bit skanky but did once try hiring someone for my business blog. You get what you pay for and at the lower end, the articles were just plagiarised rubbish and I couldn't not use it without adding a bunch of stuff.

A lot of people with websites will outsource some blog type content because it a lot of work to try to produce stuff consistently. If you pay well you get ok stuff.

So it's basically the same thing as is currently happening but free.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2023, 01:45:46 PM »
For anyone who missed it, let me introduce you all to Nothing, Forever - the OpenAI GPT-3 generated infinite Seinfeld episode

I am not looking forward to the coming endless slosh of mediocre computer written shit articles on every subject imaginable that ChatGPT is sure to usher in.  Might actually herald the end of the information age.

Agreed. Given how terrible it's already become to find useful and relevant information all on its own without AI generated content farms paying slave wages, I can't imagine how bad a hellscape of garbage this is gonna usher in being free to use.

It'll eventually re-prove the old Avenue Q joke being that the internet is for porn. Weird, freaky, AI generated porn.

Sure am glad we kept computers useful and integrated so many critical societal functions into them and the internet and our phones. Almost makes a man want to toss on a sandwich board sign and stand on a street corner.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2023, 01:58:14 PM »
Weird, freaky, AI generated porn.

You are correct, there is always a silver lining.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2023, 02:19:14 PM »
Weird, freaky, AI generated porn.

You are correct, there is always a silver lining.

"Okay, Google, I have drafty windows due to a kink in the weather stripping. Could you please give me a recommendation of the best latex bondage I can use to fix this kink?"

Your search for... strippers, wearing kinky weather-themed latex bondage... is generating. Please wait....

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1600
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #65 on: February 02, 2023, 03:40:03 PM »
For anyone who missed it, let me introduce you all to Nothing, Forever - the OpenAI GPT-3 generated infinite Seinfeld episode

I am not looking forward to the coming endless slosh of mediocre computer written shit articles on every subject imaginable that ChatGPT is sure to usher in.  Might actually herald the end of the information age.

Agreed. Given how terrible it's already become to find useful and relevant information all on its own without AI generated content farms paying slave wages, I can't imagine how bad a hellscape of garbage this is gonna usher in being free to use.

It'll eventually re-prove the old Avenue Q joke being that the internet is for porn. Weird, freaky, AI generated porn.

Sure am glad we kept computers useful and integrated so many critical societal functions into them and the internet and our phones. Almost makes a man want to toss on a sandwich board sign and stand on a street corner.

Dr. Cox also called it:

https://youtu.be/t-b6GIo1g68?t=411

« Last Edit: February 02, 2023, 03:41:56 PM by Psychstache »

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6788
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #66 on: February 03, 2023, 08:09:41 AM »
I constantly get ads on FB for AI to write articles for me, so it's already a thing. It's seems pretty obvious that AI is writing tons of the listicle type content flooding FB. Being stuck in bed this past month I've clicked on a few out of sheer boredom and thought "there's no way a human wrote this copy."

Or you're hunting for answers about a project and land on a webpage that has vague disjointed content that reads like it was copied and pasted from a dozen other websites. This website neither answers the question nor supplies any goods for sale that would solve the problem. Leaves me questioning it's purpose.

Edit: I see someone already detailed out these types of websites. Thank you. Your description was better.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2023, 08:13:50 AM by Just Joe »

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6788
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #67 on: February 03, 2023, 08:11:34 AM »
I am not looking forward to the coming endless slosh of mediocre computer written shit articles on every subject imaginable that ChatGPT is sure to usher in.  Might actually herald the end of the information age.

Have you tried looking for information on any (non-technical) topic on google/bing/etc recently? We didn't need AI to end the information age. Ad supported business models that incentivize zero-information-content content-farms full of human written filler text are doing an excellent job of that on their own.

ChatGPT articles on the same topics are a step up.

Maybe search engine toolbars ought to allow users to vote for website quality. I'd happily downvote a content farm website.

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2659
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #68 on: February 03, 2023, 08:20:31 AM »
I am not looking forward to the coming endless slosh of mediocre computer written shit articles on every subject imaginable that ChatGPT is sure to usher in.  Might actually herald the end of the information age.

Have you tried looking for information on any (non-technical) topic on google/bing/etc recently? We didn't need AI to end the information age. Ad supported business models that incentivize zero-information-content content-farms full of human written filler text are doing an excellent job of that on their own.

ChatGPT articles on the same topics are a step up.

Maybe search engine toolbars ought to allow users to vote for website quality. I'd happily downvote a content farm website.

While Google's search algorithm isn't public - it's almost certainly taking into account the signal of a user clicking on a result, leaving after 30 seconds (because the content is garbage) and then going to another result and spending 5 minutes reading. Google also will remove websites from search results that are blatant about just using scraped (copied) or AI generated content. It's not perfect but they are trying.

However, it's always going to be a cat and mouse game. There's too much money at stake on both sides. If Google doesn't provide good results traffic will drop and advertising revenue with it. For a website owner, traffic = money - either directly through the number of ads they can show or indirectly through affiliate links, getting you on an email list to sell something later, etc.

chemistk

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #69 on: February 03, 2023, 08:27:22 AM »
I happened to stumble across this video yesterday which, ironically, came out just before ChatGPT blew up. The thesis is that Google was designed for an internet that no longer exists, at least in the form that such a search engine was optimized for.

With ChatGPT, the main points are fairly well reinforced although I'd argue that the conclusion would should be swapped to ChatGPT. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48AOOynnmqU


mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Location: NWA
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #70 on: February 03, 2023, 09:03:30 AM »
chatGPT is going to be good with regards to synthesizing historical data, but I've noticed when messing around with it it is not good with live/current events. I started messing around with it during the World Cup before it really blew up and I asked it who the best player on Team USA was and it gave me players from the 2016 and 2018 teams. It will be interesting to see how they try to incorporate that type of data in their algorithms.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #71 on: February 03, 2023, 09:14:13 AM »
chatGPT is going to be good with regards to synthesizing historical data, but I've noticed when messing around with it it is not good with live/current events. I started messing around with it during the World Cup before it really blew up and I asked it who the best player on Team USA was and it gave me players from the 2016 and 2018 teams. It will be interesting to see how they try to incorporate that type of data in their algorithms.

I think that's reasonably inherent in the design. ChatGPT was trained on a dataset that was frozen in 2021 so it doesn't have knowledge about the 2022 world cup.

How to get updated information into the model without having to train a new one from scratch is, as far as I know, an "open area of research" (e.g. no one knows how to do it yet, but everyone agrees someone should figure out how to.)

mizzourah2006

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Location: NWA
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #72 on: February 03, 2023, 09:22:47 AM »
chatGPT is going to be good with regards to synthesizing historical data, but I've noticed when messing around with it it is not good with live/current events. I started messing around with it during the World Cup before it really blew up and I asked it who the best player on Team USA was and it gave me players from the 2016 and 2018 teams. It will be interesting to see how they try to incorporate that type of data in their algorithms.

I think that's reasonably inherent in the design. ChatGPT was trained on a dataset that was frozen in 2021 so it doesn't have knowledge about the 2022 world cup.

How to get updated information into the model without having to train a new one from scratch is, as far as I know, an "open area of research" (e.g. no one knows how to do it yet, but everyone agrees someone should figure out how to.)

100%. That was more a comment on the idea that ChatGPT will largely eliminate the need for a good search engine. Until they can figure that out I don't think it will.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #73 on: February 03, 2023, 09:57:19 AM »
Oh good point. Yes I agree.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #74 on: February 03, 2023, 05:59:03 PM »
I happened to stumble across this video yesterday which, ironically, came out just before ChatGPT blew up. The thesis is that Google was designed for an internet that no longer exists, at least in the form that such a search engine was optimized for.

With ChatGPT, the main points are fairly well reinforced although I'd argue that the conclusion would should be swapped to ChatGPT. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48AOOynnmqU

Good video, thanks for sharing that.

omachi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #75 on: February 06, 2023, 02:10:13 PM »
I am not looking forward to the coming endless slosh of mediocre computer written shit articles on every subject imaginable that ChatGPT is sure to usher in.  Might actually herald the end of the information age.

Don't these already exist??

I constantly get ads on FB for AI to write articles for me, so it's already a thing. It's seems pretty obvious that AI is writing tons of the listicle type content flooding FB. Being stuck in bed this past month I've clicked on a few out of sheer boredom and thought "there's no way a human wrote this copy."

They do! Most of them that I'm aware of have been pretty specialized, but do a decent job of what they're intended for. For example, there's an AI that writes sports articles aimed at recapping games played by youth. So little league, U12 soccer, that sort of thing. Most games are recorded from a stats perspective by some coach anyway (who was on base, who was at bat, etc.) and the AI picks and chooses things that made the game and puts it into a story that the local or school paper can run.

I don't feel too bad about that sort of application. Not nearly as good as a sports reporter, but no sports reporter is going to be assigned to these games, so nothing but upside. Gives people who care something to read about the game. Not a bad use of tech, honestly.

I wouldn't be surprised if content mills were using AI to generate lists or vacuous content and they're paying some intern somewhere minimum wage to clean it up so it's close to coherent. I also wouldn't be surprised if some person were writing it. Bad takes and garbage opinions tend to make people mad and drive engagement. Bleh.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6680
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #76 on: February 06, 2023, 02:35:38 PM »
I used ChatGPT this week for the first time to write some blog articles and blog titles.

In some cases it gave incorrect info but overall it did ok. It didn't produce an article that I could copy and paste directly but where it's useful to me is saving a bunch of work structuring a piece and getting the background in there. The generic intros and conclusions are fine and ready to use. I've still got to provide local context/examples - it couldn't include Australian examples.

It's saved me a few hours though and allows me to spend more time on more thoughtful or investigatory pieces that the bot wouldn't be able to do.


I used DALL-E as well where I need images. That was 50/50. In one case I just didn't like what it produced but I couldn't improve the instructions to make it better which was frustrating. And if you like something, you can't say, "do that again in exactly the same style but illustrating this new scene". Like if you wanted a series of icons or illustrations all in the same style & colour scheme.

This aligns perfectly with my experiences.

I am a freelance writer and one of my gigs is writing blog pieces for various businesses, through a parent company that provides my services along with other services.  ChatGPT came up at in our last Zoom writers meeting, and the company's owner had an almost identical take.  It is good for providing ideas, for basic formatting, etc., but that the content is too generic and full of mistakes to be used as a high-quality product for clients.  IOW, it might make my job easier or faster, but it won't make me obsolete.  Yet. 

For users who don't care about engaging, accurate writing, it's probably good enough.

But the other issue is ownership.  if I were to use chatGPT to create an article and I client posted it on their site, do they actually own that content in the same way they own content they purchase from me/my employer that was written for (and paid for) by them?  Does ChatGPT own it?  Does the nebulous writer base whose content was used to train chatGPT?  That's a minefield and until it is litigated, for many people it may be safer to just pay some freelance writer to do it instead. 

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #77 on: February 06, 2023, 10:25:53 PM »
Eh, I've heard this argument and I'm not convinced it's that much of a legal hurdle.

Wanna write yet another country song talking about tractors and heartbreak? Go right ahead, nobody cares about finding patient 0 for that genre. But write a country song that's remarkably close to prior art, uh oh, you're in trouble. People are inspired by other people's work all the damn time, and yet courts aren't inundated with copyright claims. We collectively have a pretty good sense of what's plagiarism and what isn't.

There might be a few years where we're in limbo waiting for jurisprudence to catch up, and then it will be fine.

Unrelated, but I find the constant game of cat and mouse trying to jailbreak it to be absolutely incredible stuff:
https://twitter.com/venturetwins/status/1622243944649347074

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6680
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #78 on: February 07, 2023, 09:02:55 AM »
Eh, I've heard this argument and I'm not convinced it's that much of a legal hurdle.

Wanna write yet another country song talking about tractors and heartbreak? Go right ahead, nobody cares about finding patient 0 for that genre. But write a country song that's remarkably close to prior art, uh oh, you're in trouble. People are inspired by other people's work all the damn time, and yet courts aren't inundated with copyright claims. We collectively have a pretty good sense of what's plagiarism and what isn't.

There might be a few years where we're in limbo waiting for jurisprudence to catch up, and then it will be fine.

Unrelated, but I find the constant game of cat and mouse trying to jailbreak it to be absolutely incredible stuff:
https://twitter.com/venturetwins/status/1622243944649347074

But if you ask me if I have written any country songs and I show you a set of lyrics and then you use those almost verbatim on your next album... yes we do have a good sense of what is plagiarism (or theft) and that seems to qualify. So if someone gets a concepts from chatGPT, that's like me saying I think that a good country song could be about a dog riding a tractor as a metaphor for the bumpy ride of life, and I think a line about barking at squirrels would be good to include, and then they write it, that's likely not legally problematic.  IOW, using chatGPT largely for inspiration is likely fine.  But using it for lyrics?  If you couldn't just take my lyrics and use them to make money, it seems like you might not be able to take a bot's lyrics either.  Or maybe you can, but the courts will likely have to decide that.

Until then, at a minimum, heavy editing and altering is likely the best plan, even if the software was able to create a very good product.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #79 on: February 07, 2023, 05:24:55 PM »
Eh, I've heard this argument and I'm not convinced it's that much of a legal hurdle.

Wanna write yet another country song talking about tractors and heartbreak? Go right ahead, nobody cares about finding patient 0 for that genre. But write a country song that's remarkably close to prior art, uh oh, you're in trouble. People are inspired by other people's work all the damn time, and yet courts aren't inundated with copyright claims. We collectively have a pretty good sense of what's plagiarism and what isn't.

There might be a few years where we're in limbo waiting for jurisprudence to catch up, and then it will be fine.

Unrelated, but I find the constant game of cat and mouse trying to jailbreak it to be absolutely incredible stuff:
https://twitter.com/venturetwins/status/1622243944649347074

That's pretty funny.   Using DAN is like negotiating with a genie or some other mythical and highly literal creature.


Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #80 on: February 07, 2023, 08:29:07 PM »
Eh, I've heard this argument and I'm not convinced it's that much of a legal hurdle.

Wanna write yet another country song talking about tractors and heartbreak? Go right ahead, nobody cares about finding patient 0 for that genre. But write a country song that's remarkably close to prior art, uh oh, you're in trouble. People are inspired by other people's work all the damn time, and yet courts aren't inundated with copyright claims. We collectively have a pretty good sense of what's plagiarism and what isn't.

There might be a few years where we're in limbo waiting for jurisprudence to catch up, and then it will be fine.

Unrelated, but I find the constant game of cat and mouse trying to jailbreak it to be absolutely incredible stuff:
https://twitter.com/venturetwins/status/1622243944649347074

But if you ask me if I have written any country songs and I show you a set of lyrics and then you use those almost verbatim on your next album... yes we do have a good sense of what is plagiarism (or theft) and that seems to qualify. So if someone gets a concepts from chatGPT, that's like me saying I think that a good country song could be about a dog riding a tractor as a metaphor for the bumpy ride of life, and I think a line about barking at squirrels would be good to include, and then they write it, that's likely not legally problematic.  IOW, using chatGPT largely for inspiration is likely fine.  But using it for lyrics?  If you couldn't just take my lyrics and use them to make money, it seems like you might not be able to take a bot's lyrics either.  Or maybe you can, but the courts will likely have to decide that.

Until then, at a minimum, heavy editing and altering is likely the best plan, even if the software was able to create a very good product.
My understanding is that ChatGPT is extremely, extremely unlikely to use your stuff verbatim, or even close to verbatim, because literally nobody's stuff is that unique.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6680
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #81 on: February 08, 2023, 08:46:26 AM »
Eh, I've heard this argument and I'm not convinced it's that much of a legal hurdle.

Wanna write yet another country song talking about tractors and heartbreak? Go right ahead, nobody cares about finding patient 0 for that genre. But write a country song that's remarkably close to prior art, uh oh, you're in trouble. People are inspired by other people's work all the damn time, and yet courts aren't inundated with copyright claims. We collectively have a pretty good sense of what's plagiarism and what isn't.

There might be a few years where we're in limbo waiting for jurisprudence to catch up, and then it will be fine.

Unrelated, but I find the constant game of cat and mouse trying to jailbreak it to be absolutely incredible stuff:
https://twitter.com/venturetwins/status/1622243944649347074

But if you ask me if I have written any country songs and I show you a set of lyrics and then you use those almost verbatim on your next album... yes we do have a good sense of what is plagiarism (or theft) and that seems to qualify. So if someone gets a concepts from chatGPT, that's like me saying I think that a good country song could be about a dog riding a tractor as a metaphor for the bumpy ride of life, and I think a line about barking at squirrels would be good to include, and then they write it, that's likely not legally problematic.  IOW, using chatGPT largely for inspiration is likely fine.  But using it for lyrics?  If you couldn't just take my lyrics and use them to make money, it seems like you might not be able to take a bot's lyrics either.  Or maybe you can, but the courts will likely have to decide that.

Until then, at a minimum, heavy editing and altering is likely the best plan, even if the software was able to create a very good product.
My understanding is that ChatGPT is extremely, extremely unlikely to use your stuff verbatim, or even close to verbatim, because literally nobody's stuff is that unique.

I'm referring to someone using ChatGPT's output verbatim for themselves.  I have have CGPT write me some song lyrics and I use them more or less verbatim on my next album, have I stolen that content from them in the same way I would have if I used a human writer's lyrics as my own? 

omachi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #82 on: February 08, 2023, 10:10:25 AM »
I'm referring to someone using ChatGPT's output verbatim for themselves.  I have have CGPT write me some song lyrics and I use them more or less verbatim on my next album, have I stolen that content from them in the same way I would have if I used a human writer's lyrics as my own?
I can see why people might waver on this, but it's a tool without any sort of understanding or intelligence, not a legal entity. The owner of the tool, OpenAI, can restrict your use of the tool through a license that would permit or allow your use of its output verbatim. OpenAI is the entity here, not ChatGPT. Likewise, we don't have to credit Photoshop if we use the content aware fill tool to erase things from an image, because Adobe licenses the tool to us to use with verbatim output, even when we provide imperfect input and let the tool create things we couldn't.

Now, whether OpenAI is allowed to use whatever it finds lying around the internet to train its model without paying some licensing cost to the creators is a different story. OpenAI may be on shaky legal ground for creating and offering ChatGPT under any license. This question is already playing out in the image generation space, with Getty Images suing Stability AI, who appears to have trained Stable Diffusion on their watermarked images without paying to license the images.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/1475597/getty-sues-stability-ai-and-the-future-of-ai-art-could-be-at-stake.html

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #83 on: February 08, 2023, 10:14:00 AM »
I'm referring to someone using ChatGPT's output verbatim for themselves.  I have have CGPT write me some song lyrics and I use them more or less verbatim on my next album, have I stolen that content from them in the same way I would have if I used a human writer's lyrics as my own?
I can see why people might waver on this, but it's a tool without any sort of understanding or intelligence, not a legal entity. The owner of the tool, OpenAI, can restrict your use of the tool through a license that would permit or allow your use of its output verbatim. OpenAI is the entity here, not ChatGPT. Likewise, we don't have to credit Photoshop if we use the content aware fill tool to erase things from an image, because Adobe licenses the tool to us to use with verbatim output, even when we provide imperfect input and let the tool create things we couldn't.

Now, whether OpenAI is allowed to use whatever it finds lying around the internet to train its model without paying some licensing cost to the creators is a different story. OpenAI may be on shaky legal ground for creating and offering ChatGPT under any license. This question is already playing out in the image generation space, with Getty Images suing Stability AI, who appears to have trained Stable Diffusion on their watermarked images without paying to license the images.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/1475597/getty-sues-stability-ai-and-the-future-of-ai-art-could-be-at-stake.html

The example to photoshop doesn't make sense.

You don't tell photoshop to draw you a picture and then say that the picture is your own.  You might use photoshop's tools to shade something that you are in the process of drawing . . . but that's very different from copying verbatim something that ChatGPT spits out.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6680
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #84 on: February 08, 2023, 10:46:17 AM »
I'm referring to someone using ChatGPT's output verbatim for themselves.  I have have CGPT write me some song lyrics and I use them more or less verbatim on my next album, have I stolen that content from them in the same way I would have if I used a human writer's lyrics as my own?
I can see why people might waver on this, but it's a tool without any sort of understanding or intelligence, not a legal entity. The owner of the tool, OpenAI, can restrict your use of the tool through a license that would permit or allow your use of its output verbatim. OpenAI is the entity here, not ChatGPT. Likewise, we don't have to credit Photoshop if we use the content aware fill tool to erase things from an image, because Adobe licenses the tool to us to use with verbatim output, even when we provide imperfect input and let the tool create things we couldn't.

Now, whether OpenAI is allowed to use whatever it finds lying around the internet to train its model without paying some licensing cost to the creators is a different story. OpenAI may be on shaky legal ground for creating and offering ChatGPT under any license. This question is already playing out in the image generation space, with Getty Images suing Stability AI, who appears to have trained Stable Diffusion on their watermarked images without paying to license the images.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/1475597/getty-sues-stability-ai-and-the-future-of-ai-art-could-be-at-stake.html

Not the same thing, at all.  You still created the photo and just had Photoshop change the image.  If we are trying to make a comparison, that's more akin to my writing song lyrics then putting them through Grammarly to check my grammar.  I created the content and a tool made slight changes.  Not at all the same as asking a tool with create the content, then my selling that content as my own.

Again, compare it to a person.  If you write song lyrics (or a novel, or poem, or...) and I then take those and sell them (via my album, published book, etc.), I've stolen them from you.  The legally fuzzy part seems to be whether, with software as the writer, I'm doing so without permission, or it that is more like you saying, "hey, I wrote this song lyrics.  You can have them", and then me recording them as my song. 

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3693
  • Location: Germany
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #85 on: February 08, 2023, 02:00:37 PM »
The legally fuzzy part seems to be whether, with software as the writer, I'm doing so without permission, or it that is more like you saying, "hey, I wrote this song lyrics.  You can have them", and then me recording them as my song.
That's not really fuzzy. If it is it's own piece of art, it is no plagiarism. This does not depend on the question if the creator was a machine made out of silicon or a machine made out of proteins.
Everyone, you and me included, is free to do exactly the same as ChatGPT or stable diffusion does. The only difference is that after a decade of training, the machine made out of silicon can put out a lot more per time unit than the machine made out of proteins.

Until now you had to pay a few dozen writers to get all those hotel reviews, now you only need one machine. That may be unfortunate for the writers, but getting replaced by a machine is nothing new and certainly not somethign copyright is concerned with. 

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #86 on: February 08, 2023, 02:12:03 PM »
I don't care for it, but a number of aquariums sell "art" painted by dolphins or other animals. The dolphins are not compensated for the artwork.

Similarly we have an actual court precedent that monkeys aren't allowed to hold copyrights to creative works they create (in this case a selfie).

It is hard for me to imagine an internally consistent perspective that considers use of ChatGPT made text plagarism when the use of dolphin made paintings or monkey made photos are not. ... which is not say the law, as determined by random federal judges, has to be internally consistent.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #87 on: February 08, 2023, 02:30:37 PM »
I don't care for it, but a number of aquariums sell "art" painted by dolphins or other animals. The dolphins are not compensated for the artwork.

Similarly we have an actual court precedent that monkeys aren't allowed to hold copyrights to creative works they create (in this case a selfie).

It is hard for me to imagine an internally consistent perspective that considers use of ChatGPT made text plagarism when the use of dolphin made paintings or monkey made photos are not. ... which is not say the law, as determined by random federal judges, has to be internally consistent.

But this is not even related to the discussion.  Plagiarism is where you pass off the ideas/creations of someone (or something in this case) else and pretend they're your own.

The aquariums are not claiming that the art painted is the unique work of a human.  Nobody was saying that the pictures the monkey took were actually taken by a human photographer.

You can make a case for exploitation certainly, but not plagiarism.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6680
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #88 on: February 08, 2023, 02:42:11 PM »
The legally fuzzy part seems to be whether, with software as the writer, I'm doing so without permission, or it that is more like you saying, "hey, I wrote this song lyrics.  You can have them", and then me recording them as my song.
That's not really fuzzy. If it is it's own piece of art, it is no plagiarism. This does not depend on the question if the creator was a machine made out of silicon or a machine made out of proteins.
Everyone, you and me included, is free to do exactly the same as ChatGPT or stable diffusion does. The only difference is that after a decade of training, the machine made out of silicon can put out a lot more per time unit than the machine made out of proteins.

Until now you had to pay a few dozen writers to get all those hotel reviews, now you only need one machine. That may be unfortunate for the writers, but getting replaced by a machine is nothing new and certainly not somethign copyright is concerned with.

Does changing around a few words (from the Chat GCP generated art, or human-generated art) make it "it's own piece of art"?   If I did some very light editing of Moby Dick--say I did a Find and replace that changed all instances of the word "wonderful" to "fantastic", cleaned up some passive voice here and there, and renamed the whale "Moby Fred", then published it under my own name, I don't think the courts would write it off as my own art just because I wordsmithed a few passages here and there.  Because that wouldn't be "it's own piece of art", which is entirely the point.  Taking AI-generated content and making only minor changes, then using it as one's own, and to make money is pretty darn parallel to taking Melville's content, making only minor changes, and using it as my own.  And the latter most definitely would get me in legal hot water.  Remember Vanilla Ice's sampling of Under Pressure?  Entirely different lyrics and musical genre, and a slight tinkering of the music (that extra "ding" in the baseline).  And guess what?  The courts decided it wasn't his "own original art".  He had to pay royalties and give songwriting credit to queen.  No substitute ChatGPT for Queen.  Exactly the same concept.  Queen/ChatGPT generates content.  Human takes that content, makes minor alterations and uses it as their own. The courts didn't look favorably on it when it was queen, so why would they when it is chatgpt?

Again, I'm not talking about whether it's legal for chatGPT to do what it does.  I think that might be the of your confusion, and yes, I did mention that as an aside in one of my earlier comments.  But the bulk of the discussions is about whether it is legal to take something Chat GPT generates, and use it as my own.  Perhaps the Queen/Vanilla Ice; ChatGPT/content user comparison will help clarify.  So if I enter "country music lyrics about a dog riding a tractor" and I take that output, make minor changes and then sell those lyrics, is that legal?  You seem to be conflating that with the software's legal right to train on existing song lyrics in order to write my song.  That's not what I'm talking about. 

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6680
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #89 on: February 08, 2023, 02:43:29 PM »
I don't care for it, but a number of aquariums sell "art" painted by dolphins or other animals. The dolphins are not compensated for the artwork.

Similarly we have an actual court precedent that monkeys aren't allowed to hold copyrights to creative works they create (in this case a selfie).

It is hard for me to imagine an internally consistent perspective that considers use of ChatGPT made text plagarism when the use of dolphin made paintings or monkey made photos are not. ... which is not say the law, as determined by random federal judges, has to be internally consistent.

And with this post, I think the thread has officially jumped the shark....errr... Dolphin. 

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2659
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #90 on: February 08, 2023, 03:13:50 PM »
I just found out about this today - Prime Voice AI https://beta.elevenlabs.io/s

It's an AI program that will take a 5-minute sample of your voice and then reproduce it given written content. I listened to a sample someone made where he told ChatGPT to write a short story he could tell someone then he fed that to this program, and it sounds almost indistinguishable from his voice.


We're within 5 years of being able to have programs like this (combined with technology to make deepfake videos) create videos that are going to be indistinguishable from the real thing - and do so in real time or close to it. It may not work for something very high profile like a world leader - but for anything short of that who will have the resources to prove that video isn't real?

There's going to be some high-profile case where the defendant claims the video evidence against them isn't real - and it may be nearly impossible to prove otherwise.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #91 on: February 08, 2023, 03:25:25 PM »
I don't care for it, but a number of aquariums sell "art" painted by dolphins or other animals. The dolphins are not compensated for the artwork.

Similarly we have an actual court precedent that monkeys aren't allowed to hold copyrights to creative works they create (in this case a selfie).

It is hard for me to imagine an internally consistent perspective that considers use of ChatGPT made text plagarism when the use of dolphin made paintings or monkey made photos are not. ... which is not say the law, as determined by random federal judges, has to be internally consistent.

But this is not even related to the discussion.  Plagiarism is where you pass off the ideas/creations of someone (or something in this case) else and pretend they're your own.


A fair point that I'm using the wrong term in saying "plagiarism". Thanks for the catch.

I think the term @Villanelle actually used was stealing from ChatGPT. At which point the analogy to whether or not dolphins or monkeys can own their own creative works in indeed quite relevant. Theft requires an original owner.

I'm referring to someone using ChatGPT's output verbatim for themselves.  I have have CGPT write me some song lyrics and I use them more or less verbatim on my next album, have I stolen that content from them in the same way I would have if I used a human writer's lyrics as my own?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #92 on: February 08, 2023, 03:51:29 PM »
I think the term @Villanelle actually used was stealing from ChatGPT. At which point the analogy to whether or not dolphins or monkeys can own their own creative works in indeed quite relevant. Theft requires an original owner.

Slight digression, but I have always taken issue with our current policy of saying that only humans can own anything.  When we eventually make contact with intelligent alien life it seems like this could be a bit of a sticking point.  If we agree that intelligent alien life can have ownership then our whole policy of denying ownership to anything that's not human gets drawn into question and the whole house of cards falls apart.  Can't use intelligence (usually the obvious division people pull up first) as  there are people who are less intelligent than dolphins . . . but we deny the right of owning to dolphins and allow it for the mentally handicapped simply because we define them as human.

It's a logical nightmare to try to untangle.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7434
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #93 on: February 08, 2023, 03:57:45 PM »
It's a logical nightmare to try to untangle.

I'm in complete agreement with you here. If/when the ETs show up we'll have a whole new mess to untangle.

But as long as the current consensus on property rights being unique to humans (regardless of intelligence) but not non-human terrestrial animals, I don't see any coherent way to allow ChatGPT the type of ownership necessary to speak of someone stealing from it.

And if that consensus were to change, our civilization would change in much more dramatic ways than the question of whether or not it was okay to freely use computer generated text.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #94 on: February 08, 2023, 04:05:05 PM »
It's a logical nightmare to try to untangle.

I'm in complete agreement with you here. If/when the ETs show up we'll have a whole new mess to untangle.

But as long as the current consensus on property rights being unique to humans (regardless of intelligence) but not non-human terrestrial animals, I don't see any coherent way to allow ChatGPT the type of ownership necessary to speak of someone stealing from it.

And if that consensus were to change, our civilization would change in much more dramatic ways than the question of whether or not it was okay to freely use computer generated text.

Just because it's legal to steal under current unjust laws doesn't make it right.  But I think historically though you're probably on to something.  North America was stolen from the native people who lived here, and there were no repercussions of note.  Huge fortunes were built by slave owners with no real repercussions.  Likely the exploitation of animals and AI will continue with no future repercussions.

As it stands now - ChatGPT cannot legally own anything, whether or not it creates it.

innkeeper77

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #95 on: February 08, 2023, 04:08:39 PM »
chatGPT is going to be good with regards to synthesizing historical data, but I've noticed when messing around with it it is not good with live/current events. I started messing around with it during the World Cup before it really blew up and I asked it who the best player on Team USA was and it gave me players from the 2016 and 2018 teams. It will be interesting to see how they try to incorporate that type of data in their algorithms.

chatGPT is a language model- and it actually doesn't have access to its own raw dataset it was trained on. You can ask it to explain how that works, and it will do a good job- but ask it something specific, like the trial I did today of "What is the latest version of the Vue.js framework that you are aware of based on your dataset?" - which would be EXTREMELY trivial for it to answer if it had that access- and it utterly failed. It told me that the last version it knew about was version 3.7. It was completely confident in this. The latest version TODAY of that framework is 3.3. I think this is one of the ways AI cheating is being detected- chatGPT is extremely confident but the specifics it generates, while they sound correct, are just fabrications that "sound" the same as reality to the neural network. On the other hand, I asked it to generate some code and the code looked close to or completely correct (for a trivial situation, sure, but I was curious)

So, it would be good at synthesizing historical data- for a fictional world. Actual specifics may be completely wrong. The farther you get away from trivial historical inquiries, the more likely this is.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 07:33:17 PM by innkeeper77 »

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3693
  • Location: Germany
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #96 on: February 09, 2023, 01:06:58 AM »
Does changing around a few words (from the Chat GCP generated art, or human-generated art) make it "it's own piece of art"?   If I did some very light editing of Moby Dick--say I did a Find and replace that changed all instances of the word "wonderful" to "fantastic", cleaned up some passive voice here and there, and renamed the whale "Moby Fred", then published it under my own name, I don't think the courts would write it off as my own art just because I wordsmithed a few passages here and there. 
I also don't think so. But that is on the judges to decide, and it does not matter who (or what) made the small changes.

Quote
But the bulk of the discussions is about whether it is legal to take something Chat GPT generates, and use it as my own.
Oh? But that has already been answered. ChatGPT license says yes.
Now, if this work itself is legal or not - see above.
In Germany you might be able to make a case that it comes from an "easy-to-see illegal source", but again, there is (for copyright reasons) no difference in ChatGPT or a human training on other artists. (The latter being a fairly normal thing to do afaik.)

dang1

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #97 on: February 09, 2023, 09:19:01 PM »
ChatGPT !! but does it cut like a ginzo knife ?? but wait, there's more ?? lol

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4828
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Still kickin', I guess.
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #98 on: February 10, 2023, 09:22:02 AM »
Came across an interesting read on ChatGPT the other day: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it.

One of the things that really jumped out at me and realized nobody is really talking about (especially here, what with the underlying environmental messages to the original blog) is the environmental impact of this fool thing. As Dan McQuillan put it, "ChatGPT is a part of a reality distortion field that obscures the underlying extractivism and diverts us into asking the wrong questions and worrying about the wrong things. Instead of expressing wonder, we should be asking whether it's justifiable to burn energy at 'eye watering' rates to power the world's largest bullshit machine."

The burning energy at "eye watering" rates is a direct reference to this conversation with Sam Altman on Twitter (screencap for posterity), where he says, and I quote, "we will have to monetize it somehow at some point; the compute costs are eye-watering"

That was back at the beginning of December, after they'd only crossed the one million total user mark.

So, I got curious, and found this: The Carbon Footprint of ChatGPT which takes a pretty decent stab at extrapolating its carbon footprint using more known bits, but seems to be generous in assuming it's less terrible than it may actually be, given Altman's statements. Using that article's numbers of about 414kgCO2e for 1 million users in 18 days, and keeping in mind that ChatGPT was used over 100 million times in January and usage keeps growing, what with Microsoft now integrating it into Bing and Edge? With plans to make it ubiquitous in its usage on the internet? That's what... low-ball napkin math of 41+ metric tons of CO2e in January alone for only 100 million active monthly users, assuming each user only used it once? On top of the 552 tons just to train it? That's annual McMansion carbon footprint territory here in the first two months of public usage for a bullshit generator, not counting the training set. And that same bullshit generator still sufficiently malfunctioned enough to get Nothing, Forever suspended from Twitch for eventually auto-generating transphobic content.

And let's not forget Sam Altman's a doomsday prepper that is preparing for the collapse of civilization. This is the same CEO of OpenAI who told Forbes of ChatGPT, "I think that if AGI really truly fully happens, I can imagine all these ways that it breaks capitalism."

Typical tech-bro bullshit, and completely in line with every other Elon Musk huxter bullshit technology outfit. Burn the world, under-deliver promises of the glorious singularity hyped to space and back, greenwash, and pump and dump just to make money. Just like all the other techbro bullshit that's promised to "revolutionize" the world. I'd say dump the entire outfit into the ocean, but that's just gonna release even more heavy metals and plastics into the sea.

innkeeper77

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: ChatGPT
« Reply #99 on: February 10, 2023, 09:39:19 AM »
Daley makes some very good points. That combined with the idea of replacing search with something like this is terrifying. Lets ruin the world with emissions as well as bullshit!

I think this "ai" has more potential for harm than the social media that in my opinion has already made the world significantly worse since the early 2010's. (See: the genocides that would likely have not happened without facebook and their carelessness)

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!