LoveRainbow

Revolutionary new form of tulip bulb.

Our goal is to take as much as possible in exchange for as little as possible ❤️

For me: it's the total loss of faith in humanity.

Even the political views I used to associate with "the good people" - now I see their proponents as maniputive, self-serving, bullies.

So there's no cause to support anymore: no good or evil. No point supporting the needy: because they're terrible people just like everyone else - I'll only be supporting their selfishness and the suffering they will create.

So all I'm left with is: getting from this moment of time until the time of my death as easily as possible.

🏳️‍🌈🎉❤️Shame Month❤️🎉🏳️‍🌈

Deplarforming and silencing people whose views you dislike seems like a petty form of bullying to me.

People should be allowed to express views and have them challenged.

I believe that when people feel like a particular political movement is trying to silence them and control the narrative in this way: it only strengthens their opponents.

Many of us are here on Summit because we basically got "deplatformed" for political views around Israel: I ask you if that deplatforming has reduced or strengthened your convictions?

Nobody wants trans people to die. Your post sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

I would bet substantial money that your predictions are false.

The lawyer should just be able to give this meme to the judge and have the case closed.

So, we might find these bizarre scenarios that confuse the system (based on our own deceptions): but basically it's answering questions pretty reliably right?

Fundamentally anti-AI people are overstating the problem.

What's your point?

You think that's an appropriate analogy for ChatGPT?

"Guessing and usually getting it wrong a few times before it gives you the right answer"?

If that's true why can't anyone here give me a question that it gives a false answer to.

As in: it is currently getting every question right, first time.

As I said: the only misleading answer to any question I have asked it in the last year (as someone who uses it all the time, both for work and personally) was about a heavily politicised history matter.

Even then, the information was accurate - just incredibly one sided and biased.

So go on, give me a question that it will get wrong...

Ok...so give me a question that will produce a false answer...

Nobody else has yet.

Right...

So, if I ask it a thousand random questions, a thousand times, and 99.9% of the time it gives the right answer: is that sufficient scientific evidence that it's shit hot?

How exactly would your experiment work? How much data are you going to need to, personally, accept that it's actually - already - pretty reliable and only very rarely gives misleading answers in very niche areas, or when people deliberately try to confuse it?

The thing is: this social media platform (like Reddit) has a massively anti-AI bias, and yet not a single person has been able to give me a single question that I can enter into the latest GPT model where GPT has produced inaccurate results.

Perhaps this criticism was more relevant a few years ago. As it stands it's an argument that doesn't seem to be readily supportable.

Can you prove to me, using "the scientific method" that the latest model of ChatGPT has a significant chance of producing misleading information?

And for the critics...I'm not entirely sure what they think is currently a better source of answers to questions? Random Google results where the page has paid to be at the top? Social media? Or combing through Google Scholar and finding...whichever "scientific paper" supports...whatever one wants to believe...(We saw how well that went in the pandemic).

Ok...so prove how shit it is by giving me a single question that I can ask it right now where it will give me the wrong information.

Your point is entirely reductionist: it's a "glorified search engine" that processes all of the search results with a breadth and speed most people either cannot or will not (due to time constraints) do, in seconds, and then gives an answer that is superior to any of the individual sources it bases that answer on.

It also expresses that answer in highly adaptable ways: e.g. it can express the final answer in a way suitable for a child or a postgraduate expert, or a person who learns best through answers written in a style that combines Norse Sagas and Shakespeare.