I am ALL for reigning in these above the law megacorps. That said, please do not take GPT away from me. It is such a boon to so many aspects of my life, and I don’t want to go back to the before times.
You do know the R in GDPR literally stands for Regulation? There’s already a regulation that chatGPT should follow but deliberately doesn’t. Your idea isn’t to regulate, it’s to get rid of regulation so that you could keep using your tool.
Sounded more like enforcing the regulations without destroying the company or product to me, which I would have assumed was the preferred avenue with most regulations
Agree to disagree. Regulations exist for a purpose and companies need to follow regulations. If a company/product can’t existing without breaking regulations it shouldn’t exist in the first place. When you take a stance that a company/product needs to exist and a regulation prevents it and you go changing the regulation you’re effectively getting rid of the regulation. Now, there may be exceptions, but this here is not one of those exceptions.
I mean, sure, if that’s what someone is saying, but I didn’t see anyone suggest that here.
Companies violating regulations can be made to follow them without tearing down the company or product, and I’m absolutely not convinced LLMs have to violate the GDPR to exist.
That’s a matter of perspective. I took the other persons comments as “Don’t take away my chatGPT, change the regulations if you must but don’t take it away”, which is essentially the same as “get rid of regulation”.
Realistically I also don’t see this killing LLMs since the infringement is on giving accurate information about people. I’m assuming they have enough control over their model to make it say “I can’t give information about people” and everything is fine. But if they can’t (or most likely won’t because it would cost too much money) then the product should get torn down. I don’t think we should give free pass to companies for playing stupid games, even if they make a useful product.
People can’t seem to understand that it’s a tool in the early stages of development. If you are treating it as a source of truth, you are missing the point of it entirely. If it tells you something about a person, that is not to be trusted as fact.
Every bit of information you get from it should be researched and verified. It just gives you a good jumping off point and direction to look based on your prompting. You can drastically improve your results on any subject with good direction, especially something you don’t know a lot about and are starting out in your research. If you are asking it about specific facts you want it to regurgitate, you are going to get bad information.
If you are claiming damages from something you know gives false information, maybe you should learn how to use the tool before you get your feelings invested, so you can start using it more effectively in your own applications. If you want it to specifically say something that can grab a headline, you can make it do that, it’s just disingenuous and not actually benefiting the conversation, the technology, or the future.
They have a long way to go to solve AGI, but the benefits to society along the way outpace current tools. At maturity, it has the potential to change major socio-economic structures, but it never gets there if people want to treat it like it has intuition and is trying to hurt them as the technology starts getting stood up.
If you’re wondering why you’re getting so many downvotes, it’s because you’re ignoring the fact that the companies that have created these LLMs are passing them off as truth machines by plugging them directly into search engines and then asking everybody to use them as such. It’s not the fault of the people who are trusting these things, it’s the fault of the companies that are creating them and then passing them off as something they’re not. And those companies need to face a reckoning.
Have a look at self hosted alternatives like Ollama in combination with Open-webui. It can be a hassle to set up, or even excruciatingly painful if you never touched a computer before, but it could be worth a try. I use it daily and like it much more than chatgpt to be honest.
Can absolutely never blindly trust the hallucinating plagiarism machine.
It’s great where either facts don’t matter or you’re personally in a position to vet all of its “factual” output 100%. Text revision, prompting for additional perspectives, prompting to challenge beliefs and identify gaps. Reformatting, quick and easy data extraction, outlining, brainstorming.
In most cases I’ve seen AI used, the person spends as much time correcting it than they would if they just did the work without AI. So maybe it makes you feel more productive because a bunch of stuff happens all at once, but at least for text generation, I think it’s more of a placebo.
You cannot in all seriousness use a LLM as a research tool. That is explicitly not what it is useful for. A LLM’s latent space is like a person’s memory : sure there is some accurate data in there, but also a lot of “misremembered” or “misinterpreted” facts, and some bullshit.
Think of it like a reasoning engine. Provide it some data which you have researched yourself, and ask it to aggregate it, or summarize it, you’ll get some great results. But asking it to “do the research for you” is plain stupid. If you’re going to query a probabilistic machine for accurate information, you’d be better off rolling dice.
Exactly my point - except that the word “reasoning” is far too generous, as it implies that there would be some way for it to guarantee that its logic is sound, not just highly resembling legible text.
I don’t understand. Have you ever worked an office job? Most humans have no way to guarantee their logic is sound yet they are the ones who do all of the reasoning on earth. Why would you have higher standards for a machine?
Nope, just gotta know what it IS, what it ISN’T, and how to correctly write prompts for it to return data that you can use to formulate your own conclusion.
When using AI, it’s only as smart as the operator.
No you don’t understand. The word AI, which was invented to describe this kind of technology, should not be used to describe this technology. It should instead be reserved for some imaginary magical technology that may exist in the future.
I am ALL for reigning in these above the law megacorps. That said, please do not take GPT away from me. It is such a boon to so many aspects of my life, and I don’t want to go back to the before times.
So you’re not for reining in megacorps, just the ones you don’t see as a personal benefit.
You’re right. I had an idea to regulate without completely eliminating, but that’s obviously crazy talk.
You do know the R in GDPR literally stands for Regulation? There’s already a regulation that chatGPT should follow but deliberately doesn’t. Your idea isn’t to regulate, it’s to get rid of regulation so that you could keep using your tool.
Sounded more like enforcing the regulations without destroying the company or product to me, which I would have assumed was the preferred avenue with most regulations
Agree to disagree. Regulations exist for a purpose and companies need to follow regulations. If a company/product can’t existing without breaking regulations it shouldn’t exist in the first place. When you take a stance that a company/product needs to exist and a regulation prevents it and you go changing the regulation you’re effectively getting rid of the regulation. Now, there may be exceptions, but this here is not one of those exceptions.
I mean, sure, if that’s what someone is saying, but I didn’t see anyone suggest that here.
Companies violating regulations can be made to follow them without tearing down the company or product, and I’m absolutely not convinced LLMs have to violate the GDPR to exist.
That’s a matter of perspective. I took the other persons comments as “Don’t take away my chatGPT, change the regulations if you must but don’t take it away”, which is essentially the same as “get rid of regulation”.
Realistically I also don’t see this killing LLMs since the infringement is on giving accurate information about people. I’m assuming they have enough control over their model to make it say “I can’t give information about people” and everything is fine. But if they can’t (or most likely won’t because it would cost too much money) then the product should get torn down. I don’t think we should give free pass to companies for playing stupid games, even if they make a useful product.
So we should only ban things that aren’t helpful to you in particular? That’s a very… conservative way of thinking.
Don’t you realize everyone exists to serve me?
No, they think everyone exists to serve them.
People can’t seem to understand that it’s a tool in the early stages of development. If you are treating it as a source of truth, you are missing the point of it entirely. If it tells you something about a person, that is not to be trusted as fact.
Every bit of information you get from it should be researched and verified. It just gives you a good jumping off point and direction to look based on your prompting. You can drastically improve your results on any subject with good direction, especially something you don’t know a lot about and are starting out in your research. If you are asking it about specific facts you want it to regurgitate, you are going to get bad information.
If you are claiming damages from something you know gives false information, maybe you should learn how to use the tool before you get your feelings invested, so you can start using it more effectively in your own applications. If you want it to specifically say something that can grab a headline, you can make it do that, it’s just disingenuous and not actually benefiting the conversation, the technology, or the future.
They have a long way to go to solve AGI, but the benefits to society along the way outpace current tools. At maturity, it has the potential to change major socio-economic structures, but it never gets there if people want to treat it like it has intuition and is trying to hurt them as the technology starts getting stood up.
If you’re wondering why you’re getting so many downvotes, it’s because you’re ignoring the fact that the companies that have created these LLMs are passing them off as truth machines by plugging them directly into search engines and then asking everybody to use them as such. It’s not the fault of the people who are trusting these things, it’s the fault of the companies that are creating them and then passing them off as something they’re not. And those companies need to face a reckoning.
Have a look at self hosted alternatives like Ollama in combination with Open-webui. It can be a hassle to set up, or even excruciatingly painful if you never touched a computer before, but it could be worth a try. I use it daily and like it much more than chatgpt to be honest.
is the perfect description
Thanks!
In what ways are you benefiting from a bevy of factually dubious query responses?
Can absolutely never blindly trust the hallucinating plagiarism machine.
It’s great where either facts don’t matter or you’re personally in a position to vet all of its “factual” output 100%. Text revision, prompting for additional perspectives, prompting to challenge beliefs and identify gaps. Reformatting, quick and easy data extraction, outlining, brainstorming.
Reformatting and outlining as long as you go over and revise it again anyway, seemingly making that moot.
Data extraction as long as you don’t care if the data is mangled.
Brainstorming is a good one, since off-the-wall ideas can be useful in that context.
In most cases I’ve seen AI used, the person spends as much time correcting it than they would if they just did the work without AI. So maybe it makes you feel more productive because a bunch of stuff happens all at once, but at least for text generation, I think it’s more of a placebo.
It can at least get one unstuck, past an indecision paralysis, or give an outline of an idea. It can also be useful for searching though data.
If all I want is something blatantly false or legible yet nonsensical, like a modern lorem ipsum, it’s a real time-saver.
Why not just use lorem ipsum? It’s just a copy/paste, and without the liability of having false information if you forget to proofread it.
I guess ChatGPT is just completely useless, then.
You cannot in all seriousness use a LLM as a research tool. That is explicitly not what it is useful for. A LLM’s latent space is like a person’s memory : sure there is some accurate data in there, but also a lot of “misremembered” or “misinterpreted” facts, and some bullshit.
Think of it like a reasoning engine. Provide it some data which you have researched yourself, and ask it to aggregate it, or summarize it, you’ll get some great results. But asking it to “do the research for you” is plain stupid. If you’re going to query a probabilistic machine for accurate information, you’d be better off rolling dice.
Exactly my point - except that the word “reasoning” is far too generous, as it implies that there would be some way for it to guarantee that its logic is sound, not just highly resembling legible text.
I don’t understand. Have you ever worked an office job? Most humans have no way to guarantee their logic is sound yet they are the ones who do all of the reasoning on earth. Why would you have higher standards for a machine?
I have higher expectations for machines than humans, yes.
Sounds like a recipe for disappointment tbh. But on the other hand, sounds like you trust techno marketing a bit too much.
No, I just know how to spot the lies in a datasheet.
I"m not sure what lie and what datasheet you’re referring to ?
Someone doesn’t know how to use ChatGPT
Oh, is there an arcane invocation that magically imbues it with reason?
Nope, just gotta know what it IS, what it ISN’T, and how to correctly write prompts for it to return data that you can use to formulate your own conclusion.
When using AI, it’s only as smart as the operator.
Well, it’s not AI, for starters.
Keep going…
No you don’t understand. The word AI, which was invented to describe this kind of technology, should not be used to describe this technology. It should instead be reserved for some imaginary magical technology that may exist in the future.
So then don’t call it AI.
From what I’ve seen online, most people differentiate between AI and AGI, which is cool.
As much as I hate to do this, it is AI, as ML is a part of Artificial Intelligence.
It isn’t AGI, some might say it may be, but they are wrong. But the model is learning.
An LLM is not capable of learning. It won’t hallucinate less with additional training input.
Just the notion of a computer having hallucinations should suggest that it’s doing more than just basic code.
It’s not ‘intelligent’, but it has ‘learned’ enough beyond standard CPU instructions.
That’s why it’s not a General AI, but it’s still an AI.