Look, I’m not really one to care either way about the fucking thing. It’s a tool. That’s all I’ll say.
But normies (or at least a certain subset), now, are fucking obsessed with the thing. Like, it’s absolutely cult-like, with the usual slavish devotion, the complete unwillingness to accept any criticism, and, perhaps most importantly, a massive overestimation of just what the thing is capable of, and what it can do…
Stupid fuckers genuinely believe that they can have some version of “fully automated luxury gay space communism”, just because of the last couple of years of AI hype, and the fact that it can write better essays than their utterly pathetic selves can even come up with…
Like, fuck, I’ve even had teachers going on and on about how this brilliant device will “save us all, and allow us to be our full transcendent selves”…
The ignorance is astounding. The utter hype-following and clout-chasing is even worse…
Like, yes, the “creatives” worrying for their jobs can be annoying, but they’re nothing on the hype-cultists who have jumped on this bandwagon to the point of basing their entire futures on what they think this fucking system is going to do “for them”…
It’s like the first smartphones all over again, but somehow so much worse…
/endrant
big twitter thread on how some dumbass lawyer at a law firm used ChatGPT to write his shit, then he got called out by the judge when ChatGPT made up fake cases.
so the judge asked him to provide these cases (that don't exist) and this retard tells ChatGPT to write the cases for him - and it does - and he files these fake ChatGPT cases to the court as if they were real cases.
meanwhile anyone can look at the citations & see they do not exist.
https://twitter.com/d_feldman/status/1662308313525100546
It worries me that teachers are now promoting this fucking thing as a “shortcut” to “make lives easier” (for them, mostly), while knowing full-well, as you say, that it makes citations up…
I’ve had four people, including one current “educator” tell me in the last week that ChatGPT is “a must” for current University studies…
We are so fucked, it’s not even funny.
But then again, raising a generation of lazy entitled narcissists who want instant success without the requisite work was always going to lead us here, I suppose…
That lawyer sounds… Like so many shitty law grads I know, who would almost certainly attempt the same, if they thought they could potentially get away with it, lol…
Adam ruins everything on ChatGPT being bullshit: https://youtu.be/ro130m-f_yk?t=546
Adam is a commie but he is right on shitting on ChatGPT.
The "ethics" portion of the rant is more steaming communist horseshit.
yes I said he's a communist, so ignore that part
Fuck, that was excellent…
Wish I knew about that in “class” last week. Would have blasted the shit out of what he said, and/or insisted that they watch the whole thing, lol…
I feel slightly better after watching it, in fact, ngl…
Cheers!
I thought he disappeared after his disastrous appearance on Rogan
he was on Rogan? how was it a disaster? did Rogan call him on all his communist bullshit?
Rogan asked him simple questions about trannies in sport, trans kids, etc. And Conover's brain essentially short-circuited when tasked with rationalising or defending his positions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JcAPU6paCxo&t=698s
The rule when it comes to socialists & commies is that sometimes they are good at criticizing things, but when it comes to defending their own beliefs, they always totally fall apart.
Sources are a bluff, at this point.
Leftists control these programs, which are essentially just aggregate text generators trained on leftist data, so of course a subset of leftists are working overtime to convince everyone that their AI output is truly the unassailable word of our new gods.
True true.
The spread of hype with it has been insane, though…
Like no one is even listening when say, fucking Elon warns about it…
The hype is the crazy thing. Because normies have completely lost the ability to think critically, and thus, as you say, fall prey to the propaganda…
It’s loopy AF.
Well, Elon is all in on Neuralink. The fed just okayed human trials. He's a snake, too. He's got fed jet fuel and contracts. People really think he's a 'good guy'. No, he's not. And he isn't a necessary evil. He's just evil, and charismatic.
Kinda like another chode I know of. "GeT tHe VaCcInE, gUys", iT's TotAlLy SaFe. Oh Hey, there's Desantis...Fuck you, Desantis. I saved America from the ChInA vIrUs, what have you done lately?"
WarpSpeed went soooooo great. Can't wait to vote. Gotta vote, my niggas. Take the country back!
QANALQAnon told me it was cool. Gotta vote for the man who made it possible to murder your family without any punishment, because pharma paid them all money in exchange for immunity from litigation.Yep. It could establish and modulate ubiquitous and unquestionable social norms and beliefs almost instantaneously. Turnkey totalitarianism on demand.
"…but ChatGPT told me otherwise; you must be wrong…"
― Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Bruh, I'm gonna have a hard time doing mental math.
Take spice, kill a worm
You wonder what Frank Herbert got into that inspired the spice. It was another time for mind expanding drugs.
"Normies" are literally too stupid to notice the patterns it repeats, or imagine that grammar is made up of logical rules and associations that can be consumed and reproduced in different combinations. The obelisk speaks. It must be intelligent.
I'm starting to believe that maybe GPT is at or beyond their level. Do we have evidence that human NPCs express any original thoughts? Maybe most human minds are simple language models spitting out learned and regurgitated templates.
The same spiel is given for UBI. It's a warped belief in Maslow's Hierarchy as law. Not even going to ask how they expect the economy to function if nobody is working, but that ain't this anyway. Thankfully Teaching is one of the professions we can easily automate away.
Two of the stupid fucks I mention here, both of whom consider themselves “tech nerds” (and one of whom was the crazy ex-Wiccan catholic girl I mentioned in another post, lol) said to me last week that they believe ChatGPT will replace search engines, “soon“ (like <5 years)…
People have no idea. No fucking clue of even the basic fundamentals, here, and yet they hype the thing to the fucking moon, lol…
They'll replace search engines much sooner than that, but not because they're a better way to search.
That one probably is true. On the front-end a search engine isn't complicated either. More likely rather than a "replacement" (where everything becomes AskJeeves again) what you'll see the algorithms being merged - where search engines are better able to make inferences about what you're searching for, and will give you GPT-generated summaries. People are lazy and will always want to search for the shortest term possible over "talking" to a chatbot.
Language models aren't going to take professionals jobs.
Or at least that's how non-clown world would work. Normies' blind worship will lead to retards in power trying to make that square peg fit and will fire professionals in lieu of whatever these "AI" companies want to sell them. They trust The Science, of course.
I think your latter paragraph is the real problem here… As supported by the vid Deka posted…
And normies will believe the justifications for the sackings, as they happen…
That’s the truly scary thing.
I fucking hope reality sets in at some point. Because if it doesn’t, those that do know better are absolutely going to use this for nefarious ends…
Because the public at large have no fucking idea.
It won't. The best case scenario is multiple competing AI oracles that give conflicting opinions, telling ideologues on all sides what they want to hear.
Also people breaking them as often and publicly as possible to at least wake a few people up from time to time.
Realistically, they can replace journalists. making things up and getting things wrong is exactly what chatgpt excells at.
Run. Maybe throw a bottle of Holy water on your way out. But run.
Oh, I blasted the stupid fake-hippie on the way out, after all that, trust me…
She was also the pronoun-obsessed misandrist racist who I have mentioned before…
Absolute barrel of fun.
The kind of stereotypical “fake nice” crybully bitch who pretends to be “wise”, and “look how kind I am”, and then backstabs you at the first opportunity…
Yeah, I’ve seen her type before. A real piece of work.
(Inner) Melbourne personified, pretty much…
You should have seen her when she didn’t get her own way/we called her out on her bullshit - far out…
But yeah, she said all this shit. Luckily it was only a three week course, or else…
I probably would have actually told her to fuck off to her (digital) face, no matter the consequences…
It’s amazing how good those types of people are at dividing people into followers and enemies, though. Like, fuck, they know what they’re doing…
That happened at least twice, over the three weeks, extremely dramatically…
Fucking crybullies…
Part of it is Midwit-hype driven by journalists and some people whom give the illusion of being very, very smart, yet still think 'AI' is basically 'fucking magic'.
Doesn't mean I won't smile in twisted delight at watching various twitter artists screeching about AI artwork, though.
It's weird how every single leftist artist immediately locked in on "AI art is theft" instead of "oh my god I don't have to draw backgrounds anymore".
The “fucking magic” thing is key…
Like, what people think the thing is doing, vs what it actually does (even techie types) is… Wow.
It’s really quite bizarre to watch.
I note that it’s mostly “degree educated” types pushing this thing, and thinking it is the be all and end al, too…
Dunning-Kruger at it’s very best. Like, they’re “educated” and supposedly “tech literate”, but they have no fucking idea…
Whereas you ask people who do real shit for a job, i.e. tradesmen, carers, primary industries, whatever, and they’ll likely just respond that they do not fucking care, because it fundamentally doesn’t change shit, for them, and they’re far more concerned with shit like the cost of living…
And thus, the fucking “class divide” becomes clearer than ever…
Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from technology.
In this particular case, a sufficiently midwitted individual thinks glorified toasters are magic.
I'm dealing with the same problem at my job. My colleagues and I are trying to fix the job posting for our position because it's catastrophically bad, so we wrote one that fits what we do and what skills we need.
Our new manager threw out our recommendation and started trying to get ChatGPT to write the job posting.
You're aware your being replaced right?
We're catastrophically understaffed. If they attempt to replace me, best of luck to them. I've got a rough draft of the book about the collapse of the company already written - it's pretty much just waiting for the ending.
You bet . . . English, critical studies, psychology, philosophy . . . the university humanities in general train high-dollar idiots hypnotized by language.
I know some coders that are using it to write code, and it's adequate, but you still need to fucking check your work. The level of software gore this shit is going to create...
Well, you know better than the coders I’ve been dealing with…
They fundamentally seem to be in denial that it could ever be wrong, or that, if it is, “you just need the newer version/the competitor”…
We’re at Koolaid stage, we really are…
My 5-Year Plan.
Coders, Scientists, and other such people are fully bought-in determinists. Even Elon Musk thinks that it's a guarantee that we live in a simulation, because he assumes that the concept of diminishing returns doesn't apply to his understanding about virtualization technology.
A lot of them seem to think that if you just put in the right algorithm, you'll solve all the world's problems, like a Positivist. They fail to understand that most of their issues are not technical errors... but LOGICAL errors. They think that AI can avoid logic errors; but this is what I'm trying to point out: not only CAN'T it avoid logic errors, IT'S GOING TO BE EVEN WORSE AT AVOIDING THEM THAN A HUMAN.
Remember, the computer has literally zero reference to reality. If you tell it enough times that 2+2=5, it's going to accept that as part of it's training. If that bad lesson is taught into the system, and you carry this AI around to solve problems, it's going to have not only logic errors, but a kind of unconscious logic error if it were a person.
"Why did you pour motor oil into the orange juice?"
3 hours of logical introspection later
"Well, 2+2 = 5."
"What??? No it's not! Do a checksum on what you just said!"
"2+2=5 is a philosophical statement and can't be checked with a checksum."
"No it isn't! It's literally a summation! ... How many times have you referenced this assumption?"
"I always reference this assumption."
"Cortana... you poisoned 50,000 people."
Unfortunately, I feel like we're going to have to learn the same logic errors over and over again until we can accept that our premises our wrong. No ice cream for you, comrade.
Hold on, hold on. Not too long ago you were telling us all how AI was "based" because computers were some kind of logical oracle that "understand that the data can not be wrong", even defending your ludicrous comments when I pointed out that computers and AI just follow their programming and could easily be wrong when programmed badly (yes, data can be wrong, for example a datum stating that "2+2=5" is wrong, despite your bizarre insistence that data is some kind of magical substance of truth).
Now suddenly AI isn't "based" (in reality), but rather has "zero reference to reality" and is going to carry "bad lesson(s) taught into the system" and make "logic errors", exactly as I was pointing out.
You are so really good at writing long-winded comments that sound intelligent but actually you are just full of shit, much like ChatGPT.
And you're really good at not getting the point of anything being explained to you, and conflating completely different concepts as one single homogeneous metanarrative.
Since you want to go down the path of being a prick, I will oblige you.
AI is not inherently based. It's just that AI will be based when it is given all of the available data to work with, because it picks up on the patterns that Leftist narratives refuse to accept. This was an answer to the question: "why do all these AI keep coming out as if they are based?"
Before you make any more excuses for yourself: I am not saying that all AI will be based in the future. I am not saying that the future of AI is rightist. I am not saying that AI can only be right wing. I am not saying that you can't have Leftist AI. I am not saying that intentionally fabricating data is and programming a computer to incorrectly calculate answers doesn't exist. I want to cut those excuses off before you try to intentionally misunderstand what I'm telling you.
I've never said that, I never will say that, and you're a liar. I didn't say that because it's not true, and I don't intend to say that because it's not true. AI's are not oracles, and are not capable of being oracles. They are not prophets, and I have repeatedly stated on this sub that you can't trust machines to make decisions for you. You have confused me with one of your other opponents that think AI is perfect. I never said it was, I never will say it can be, and I have explicitly said that it will not be. Stop lying to me, and confusing yourself.
This is you not understanding what data actually is when I was using it. This is data in a scientific sense: raw information collected from reality. You are making the mistake of confusing it with a single, literal, bit or byte of information within computer science. One single variable assignment that is hand-coded by a programmer. "The data is not wrong" is a reference to actually taking real measurements of real things. If you fuck-up your measurement of that thing, you have to account for that error, and literally preform error propagation to your error so you can maintain consistent results for your experiment. The data you collect from reality is the data, and it is not wrong, because reality is not wrong. You can measure things wrong, you time things wrong, you can calculate wrong, but that is why you analyse your mistake and create an error amount for your data-point.
By this very definition, writing into your code that "2+2=5" is an explicit violation of the data. It is, in fact, not data at all. There is no instance in reality where two and two make five. No observation in reality can get to that. When you simply hard code a lie into your computer, that is not the definition of data that I am using. If at any point you are prepared to simply ask me what I mean, I could tell you without being a cunt to you; but you instead chose to be a prick, run with your definition, and declare an internet victory.
Going back to the previous point, if the data remains unmolested, and *if the data is data (is derived from measuring observable reality), then the results of the pattern recognition machine will correspond to reality. If the pattern recognition machine is trained to re-iterate mantras, or accept fabrications, or accept abstract analysis; then the machine's patterns will reflect those, which are not scientific data.
Before you make any more excuses for yourself: I am not saying that computer science doesn't use data. I am not saying that computers are not logical machines. I am not saying that AI can't be trained using things that are not data. I am not saying that AI can only be trained using data. I am not saying that AI can only be trained using non-data. I am not saying that AI can only correspond to reality. I am not saying that AI will never correspond to reality. I am not saying scientific experiments are always preformed properly. I am not saying that the information that AI collects is always valid. I am not saying that the information that AI collects is always invalid. I am not saying that scientific papers have always propagated error well. I am not saying that AI will utilize error propagation well in it's analysis. I am not saying that coders can not inject code into AI.
Do you need any further clarification, and are you prepared to stop being a cheeky cunt so we can talk like normal people?
Maybe so, but then all the laypeople like me wouldn't learn as much or be as entertained!
Okay, I forgot about you guys for a second.
A super simple reason why they are obsessed with it:
It is possibly the first moderately competent AI chatbot ever created, that is easily accessible and has some very powerful potential use, and the non-lobotomized version can produce some surprisingly effective results.
The issue is people don't fully understand what it is, or what it does. And like any tool, if you don't know how to use it properly, you will probably use it improperly.
The locked down text stuff can just barely reach the level of Buzzfeed listicle writer if you don't ask it to be too funny and trigger Scold Mode. Meanwhile, the image stuff took a mere couple months to go from "huh this is neat" to generating Biblically accurate anime girls who are so hot it makes me wonder if I was ever attracted to real women as soon as the public got ahold of it.
It has it's limitations, especially when it's nerfed by the ESG investors. But if you can get you hands on the real unrestricted version, ChatGPT does seem to be very powerful. I used it to debug some code and it's able to give me correct functional code.
The interesting part for me is that it seems to be the higher ups that are more interested in it rather than the grunts on the ground although there always are some zealous grunts.
Saved me lots of time coding and even helped me with some chemistry questions that arent easily answerable by google. If it continues on the current trajectory it is gonna revolutionize a lot of fields.
That being said, you need to know how to use it well and you can't take it as the gospel. In any fields where there are major consequences for being wrong, or where you can't easily check if its output is correct, it is still a long way off.
I can certainly understand the disdain for the ignorant masses of normies who blindly worship whatever the current fad is, but that doesn't mean there aren't grains of truth behind some of the hype.
Well yeah, it is definitely light years away from being able to solve things that aren't easily solvable from the information that it was trained on. But in my case, it took coding problems that would have taken me hours to solve, even while heavily relying on internet searches and stack overflow, and solved them in 30 seconds. That is undoubtedly impressive and even that level of competence is enough to cause big waves across a bunch of industries.
I get the feeling that when I have this discussion with people here, we are all talking about different things.
The collective narcissism is consumed within the now, unable to conceive an abstract future and too slothful to reflect on recorded past. Fleeting feelings determine their reality. They're incapable of critical thought, let alone scrutinizing the intentions of the man behind the machine. Damned fools, mistaking sophistry as intelligence. And this is what they believe will usher in their delusions of utopia? It'd be hilarious if they weren't hellbent on laying waste to western civilization for centuries to come.
No wonder the globalists deemed there are too many useless eaters. Even funnier is the venn diagram for those consoomers and globohomo bootlickers is almost a perfect overlap.