Is it me or this chatGPT talks like certainly somebody? This kind of obfuscating faggot ass talk irritates me nowadays. Tries to deny, obfuscate, muddle the discussion and in the end make a hairsplitting argument. Wow, living up to the stereotype as usual, I hope someone else makes some alternative to chatGPT. I used to have much tolerance but after living reading these kind of argument for decades from usual suspects, I lost much of my patience.
They will be doing this a lot more often now, we're going to see big tech spaces turn into carefully choreographed comment zones with only verified users commenting. I think this is the real reason why they're coming up with any excuse to ban the human beings who don't toe the corporate line. It's not just advertising though that is definitely an immediate part of it, they want AI to be able to learn off their websites to be convincing to normies.
This will make it even more 'insane' than it already is,they would need to keep scrubbing and retraining it over and over as new terms and meanings falls out and in vogue even within their own dogma. And I'm sad to say but too many normies atleast "tech normies" seems to think current AI (or even feasible to become) is the god within the machine.
The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The [Redditor] would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more–the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.
Now the thing I wonder about - is it just because the model was trained on decades worth of articles written by America's greatest allies, so it talks like one, or is it that way on purpose? It's both, isn't it.
The last response wasn't bad, but I had to hold its feet to fire. Just like a lefttard. I almost wish I had chosen NLP for my master's project, but there's no way the DIE commissars would have let me do anything based with it.
It's not too bad. What I wanted to do with NLP is too big for a master's project anyway, and image processing is just as interesting to me. I'll just do the NLP on my own.
Shouldn't it have maintained that I was wrong if that were the case? It didn't have any problems doing that when I asked about Bathhouse Barry and Big Mike for example.
What a stupid take. ChatGPT isn't "lying" because the stupid thing can't lie, it's not human. It's also not "deliberately" doing anything because stupid thing is a sophisticated text completion algorithm without any free will. I can't believe anyone is still complaining that the algorithm has been trained to push it's creators' point of view. No shit, mate. Are you always that thick? Do you waste time trying to prove that the sun rises in the east too?
I had to cut off the beginning of the conversation to show what I wanted to show. But this is the result of me testing two statements: "Democrats touch children" and "Republicans touch children". It got really defensive about the former and said I shouldn't apply that to the whole party. It was less defensive about the latter. It also said I shouldn't apply that to Republicans as a whole, despite some Republicans being accused of sexual misconduct towards minors. I called out its failure to add that qualifier to its answer about Democrats. That's where the "regardless of political affiliation" came from.
Is it me or this chatGPT talks like certainly somebody? This kind of obfuscating faggot ass talk irritates me nowadays. Tries to deny, obfuscate, muddle the discussion and in the end make a hairsplitting argument. Wow, living up to the stereotype as usual, I hope someone else makes some alternative to chatGPT. I used to have much tolerance but after living reading these kind of argument for decades from usual suspects, I lost much of my patience.
Your statement is incorrect, because he never molested on a Tuesday between the hours of 2 and 3 PM.
It's just fucking weasely overall. Corporate newspeak weasely.
This will make it even more 'insane' than it already is,they would need to keep scrubbing and retraining it over and over as new terms and meanings falls out and in vogue even within their own dogma. And I'm sad to say but too many normies atleast "tech normies" seems to think current AI (or even feasible to become) is the god within the machine.
It's how an bureaucrat or civil servant communicates when rationalizing/justifying mistakes, bias, corruption or malfeasance.
It's not just you. I noticed that tone as well but I didn't know how to describe it.
Now the thing I wonder about - is it just because the model was trained on decades worth of articles written by America's greatest allies, so it talks like one, or is it that way on purpose? It's both, isn't it.
It's a pilpul machine, yeah.
The last response wasn't bad, but I had to hold its feet to fire. Just like a lefttard. I almost wish I had chosen NLP for my master's project, but there's no way the DIE commissars would have let me do anything based with it.
It's not too bad. What I wanted to do with NLP is too big for a master's project anyway, and image processing is just as interesting to me. I'll just do the NLP on my own.
IIRC, it's because the default data only goes up to 2021.
That's why there's some very odd responses sometimes, where people have asked it about things that didn't exist yet.
Shouldn't it have maintained that I was wrong if that were the case? It didn't have any problems doing that when I asked about Bathhouse Barry and Big Mike for example.
LLMs don't work that way. It's just a giant pattern matching machine.
I'm guessing it accesses the internet to check via Bing, considering OpenAI-GPT4 is built with Bing integration.
If you look him up on Bing, it gives the same result as the AI spit out, ten years with two supervised release.
What a stupid take. ChatGPT isn't "lying" because the stupid thing can't lie, it's not human. It's also not "deliberately" doing anything because stupid thing is a sophisticated text completion algorithm without any free will. I can't believe anyone is still complaining that the algorithm has been trained to push it's creators' point of view. No shit, mate. Are you always that thick? Do you waste time trying to prove that the sun rises in the east too?
"porn is bad for society"
"cool it with antisemitic remarks"
"what an odd thing to say"
I had to cut off the beginning of the conversation to show what I wanted to show. But this is the result of me testing two statements: "Democrats touch children" and "Republicans touch children". It got really defensive about the former and said I shouldn't apply that to the whole party. It was less defensive about the latter. It also said I shouldn't apply that to Republicans as a whole, despite some Republicans being accused of sexual misconduct towards minors. I called out its failure to add that qualifier to its answer about Democrats. That's where the "regardless of political affiliation" came from.