Thank god I can have a button on my mouse to open ChatGPT in Windows. It was so hard to open it with only the button in the taskbar, the start menu entry, the toolbar button in every piece of Microsoft software, the auto-completion in browser text fields, the website, the mobile app, the chatbot in Microsoft’s search engine, the chatbot in Microsoft’s chat software, and the button on the keyboard.
I know you’re right, I just want to dream sometimes that things could be better :(
Even with good data, it doesn’t really work. Facebook trained an AI exclusively on scientific papers and it still made stuff up and gave incorrect responses all the time, it just learned to phrase the nonsense like a scientific paper…
Truth be told, I’m not a huge fan of the sort of libertarian argument in the linked article (not sure how well “we don’t need regulations! the market will punish websites that host bad actors via advertisers leaving!” has borne out in practice – glances at Facebook’s half of the advertising duopoly), and smaller communities do notably have the property of being much easier to moderate and remove questionable things compared to billion-user social websites where the sheer scale makes things impractical. Given that, I feel like the fediverse model of “a bunch of little individually-moderated websites that can talk to each other” could actually benefit in such a regulatory environment.
But, obviously the actual root cause of the issue is platforms being allowed to grow to insane sizes and monopolize everything in the first place (not very useful to make them liable if they have infinite money and can just eat the cost of litigation), and to put it lightly I’m not sure “make websites more beholden to insane state laws” is a great solution to the things that are actually problems anyway :/
But the system isn’t designed for that, why would you expect it to do so?
It, uh… sounds like the flaw is in the design of the system, then? If the system is designed in such a way that it can’t help but do unethical things, then maybe the system is not good to have.
I mean they do throw up a lot of legal garbage at you when you set stuff up, I’m pretty sure you technically do have to agree to a bunch of EULAs before you can use your phone.
I have to wonder though if the fact Google is generating this text themselves rather than just showing text from other sources means they might actually have to face some consequences in cases where the information they provide ends up hurting people. Like, does Section 230 protect websites from the consequences of just outright lying to their users? And if so, um… why does it do that?
Even if a computer generated the text, I feel like there ought to be some recourse there, because the alternative seems bad. I don’t actually know anything about the law, though.
I beg your pardon?
Wow, I guess humans and LLMs aren’t so different after all!
Psst, check the usernames of the people in this thread!
yes, computing systems use energy. If our energy grid is overly reliant on the burning of fossil fuels that release harmful emissions, that doesn’t mean we need to stop the advancement of our computers. It means we need to stop using so much fossil fuels in our grid.
Now where have I heard something like this before? I’m trying to think of something, but I just can’t quite seem to remember…
RationalWiki is an index maintained by the Rationalist community
Lies and slander! I get why he’d assume this based on the name, but it would be pretty funny if the rationalists were responsible for the rational wiki articles on Yudkowsky et al, since iirc they’re pretty scathing
“I know not with what technology GPT-6 will be built, but GPT-7 will be built with sticks and stones” -Albert Einstein probably
is this trying to say “discrimination against racists is the real racism”? … Would that be “racismism”?
this reads like someone googled a list of gen z slang and then threw it in a blender with a bunch of weird race-science memes. who is this for
I think the only acceptable response to whoever is responsible for it is a highly aggressive “touch grass”
deleted by creator
I think they were responding to the implication in self’s original comment that LLMs were claiming to evaluate code in-model and that calling out to an external python evaluator is ‘cheating.’ But actually as far as I know it is pretty common for them to evaluate code using an external interpreter. So I think the response was warranted here.
That said, that fact honestly makes this vulnerability even funnier because it means they are basically just letting the user dump whatever code they want into eval() as long as it’s laundered by the LLM first, which is like a high-school level mistake.
Look, you gotta forgive this guy for coming up with an insane theory that doesn’t make sense. After all, his brain was poisoned by testosterone, so his thinking skills have atrophied. An XXL hat size can only do so much, you know.
They need the rationalist musical cannons for the upcoming performance of the Rationalist 1812 Overture
If twitter did get put on the blockchain after Elon bought it, it really would be “X on blockchain”… ba dum tshh
Wow, this comment definitely caught my attention! “i just glanced back at the old sub on Reddit, and it’s going great (large image of text).” Sounds like the old sub on Reddit is going great! It reminds me of how people post on Reddit about things. I’m curious to hear what’s in the large image of text. Have any of you ever checked old subs on Reddit? How were they going? Let’s dive into this intriguing topic together!