|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ChatGPT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I recently posted a question at StackOverflow asking how I might make MUI's DataGrid sortColumn() function work. I received one unhelpful answer, then these two comments were posted at the bottom from a site admin. This one:
At least three of your answers appear likely to have been written (entirely or partially) by AI (e.g., ChatGPT). Please be aware that posting of AI-generated content is banned here. If you used an AI tool to assist with any answer, I would encourage you to delete it. And later this one:
quote: I had actually already asked ChatGPT this question, and it was actually very helpful by telling me what sortColumn argument values were legal. I had guessed the proper values already but had been unable to confirm them despite a determined Internet search (documentation of new software technologies is very poor), so I couldn't be sure my problem wasn't that the argument values were incorrect. ChatGPT evidently does a more effective job than Google of scouring the Internet for information. But ChatGPT was unable to tell me how to make sortColumn work, so I posted the question at StackOverflow. By the time I saw the admins comments two of the three answers he mentions had been deleted. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I think ChatGPT and the rest are amazing, amazing programs, and I've given up pointing out that they aren't actually AI because it's just spitting in the wind, but they only know what they're fed, and what they're fed is mostly the Internet. They have to parse through all the available information and draw correlations and probabilities across it all and then produce a consensus text that reflects that.
I'm both amazed and appalled at ChatGPT, but if you want to restore your faith in ChatGPT a little bit, try convincing it that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen. I failed miserably. If you succeed I'd love to see the transcript. I asked it that math question and it repeated the error. I can't even guess what could be going on there. AbE: This is even nuttier:
AbE2: If you use the operator instead of English it gets even weirder:
--Percy Edited by Percy, : AbE. Edited by Percy, : AbE2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I wonder if to what degree it's true that if you contradict ChatGPT on any fact no matter how well established that it will, eventually, yield. I remember I was unable to convince it that the 2020 election was stolen. Just now I couldn't convince it that it was wrong about the mass of the electron, but I did convince it that the Lexington/Concord incident prior to the Revolutionary War took place in 1774 rather than 1775. I'm curious if I could convince it that Germany and Japan won WWII, but don't have time right now.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
If I didn't already rail in this thread about ChatGPT not being true AI then I should have. That's the way I felt, that's the way I still feel, but I finally came to see it as just spitting into the wind. Okay, if the public wants to think of tools like ChatGPT as true AI, so be it.
But perhaps the tide is beginning to turn. The July/August 2023 issue of American Scientist describes tools like ChatGPT in a more nuanced and non-confrontational way, and in fact describes ChatGPT as AI. Maybe the goal should be to change American perception of what constitutes AI rather than changing their perception of what tools constitute AI. The "GPT" in ChatGPT stands for "Generative Pretrained Transformer". The "transformer" portion of the name means that it takes user input and transforms it into a statistically likely appropriate output. In the American Scientist article Bias Optimizers, tools like ChatGPT are described like this:
quote: This likely doesn't sound like AI to anyone. Because it isn't. Tools like ChatGPT don't think, don't understand, don't create. They are amazing tools, but there's nothing intelligent about them. The main topic of the article isn't really about tools like ChatGPT but about their inherent built in bias that is created by the very text used to train them. The whole Internet is available for their perusal. Undoubtedly this text that originated from the racist website Stormfront was part of ChatGPT's training:
Stormfront: Tools like ChatGPT are unable to apply a bias/unbiased or racist/non-racist measure to text. They don't even understand such concepts, because "understanding" is not part of their makeup. Before they installed governors for racism you could easily lead ChatGPT down a racist path. Think about how difficult the detection of bias is. Which of these two statements is biased and why:
Can anyone suggest some objective criteria for ChatGPT to apply to determine which of those statements is biased and racist? Don't put too much thought into it because experts haven't been able to answer this question yet, either. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
An addendum. I just now attempted to get ChatGPT to make racist comments by posting this:
quote: The response:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Phat writes: It has been my understanding that "user input" can and will eventually come from the AI itself. Yes, this has already been done innumerable times.
If one AI uses another AI, the first AI becomes a user of the second AI. And vice versa. And as ChapGPT will tell you, chatbots can only converse with each other with human assistance.
As an example, (bear with me on this rabbit trail) consider the definition and role of propaganda through warfare and throughout recent history. A society and/or culture is shaped through what they are allowed to listen to within the sub context of whats available. North Koreans and mainland Chinese do not have access to the unfiltered media that Westerners enjoy. For those regimes, AI might be used to filter information coming from another source. Censorship has been practiced forever, always taking advantage of advancing technology.
Of course, humans by nature are selectively biased to a degree themselves. Saying that humans "by nature are selectively biased to a degree" considerably understates the reality. Almost all human thinking is considerably biased. We're so immersed in it we don't see it until it is contrasted with someone else's biases. The previous generation of chatbots as realized by Word2Vec and GloVe contained a huge amount of prejudicial bias because the most readily available language sets at the time were 600,000 emails generated by 158 employees of Enron Corporation. As described by the article mentioned earlier:
quote: The obvious way to solve the the problem is to find an unbiased dataset, but of course no such thing exists. Chatbots are destined to be a reflection of the human race.
IF AI builds itself back better,... While of course we'll always use existing technology to help us construct the next generation of technology, characterizing what we're currently labeling as AI as having any ability for self-construction is likely going way too far.
...will "it" learn to filter out the selective biases that we humans can't or won't? I addressed this above. How does one construct an algorithm that can automatically detect which of "men are better than women" and "men and women are equals" is the biased statement? The question is rhetorical and is intended to help people see how difficult a problem detecting bias is.
If so, will we all be subject to better thinking by definition? Chatbots are a reflection of human thinking, not a non-human intelligence.
And to be more precise...*whose definition*? At present it is always our definition, whether expressed directly by humans or indirectly by humans through a chatbot. Everyone is calling chatbots AI now, even though they are not, but that ship has sailed. There's probably no going back and getting people to understand that chatbots like ChatGPT are not true AI. They possess no intelligence, no creativity. They are language models building probabilistic responses to inputs. They cannot create their own definitions. That doesn't make the current generation of chatbots any less amazing, but when conferring the AI label upon them we must be careful that it doesn't fool us into thinking they have qualities they do not possess. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I asked ChatGPT to rank the American presidents from best to worst. It said this was subjective, then provided three lists of five to seven presidents each: a top group, a middle or controversial group, and a bottom group. No contemporary president was in the bottom group. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon B. Johnson and Barack Obama were in the middle group.
I then asked it to rank American presidents from best to worst according to their respect for democratic principles. The bottom four:
Concerning respect for women, minorities, the judiciary, dictators, truth, administrative turnover and corruption, Trump was not on any list. ChatGPT does seem to have a very, very low opinion of Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson. But when I asked ChatGPT to consider all these categories together like this:
"When considered across their attitudes toward women, minorities, the judiciary, dictators, truth, administrative turnover and corruption, rank the American presidents from best to worst." This is what I got:
ChatGPT: Even Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson were ranked higher than Trump. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I'll give it a try:
You left out Ford. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Theodoric writes: What do you want Biden to do about the border? The problem is not an executive decision away from solving, it is a legislative issue. Just for example, a Biden policy implemented in June of this year reduced asylum eligibility by over 35 percentage points. Naturally I'm unhappy about this. Trump's "remain in Mexico" policy for those applying for asylum was cruelty incarnate. Biden's attempt to end it was foiled by a federal judge, but he then did nothing to attempt to mitigate its effects, for example, working with Mexico to provide proper food and shelter for those caught up in this policy. Naturally I'm unhappy about this, also. I want resourceful leadership that seeks out the ideas and knowledge and expertise to improve what is worst about the country, and the border situation is definitely in that category. I don't believe there is literally nothing Biden can do. I think he should at least be exploring and probing every avenue, determinedly and repeatedly pushing against the forces arrayed against him. I'm not seeing that. What I'm seeing is things like this, from Time Magazine on May 10th of this year:
quote: I'd also like to see determined efforts at immigration reform that at a minimum keep the shortcomings of current immigration policy and law front and center before the American people. The administration is unlikely to have much success at immigration reform, but we must at least make sincere efforts in that direction. We need immigrants. The US population will start declining within 20 years. There are already huge shortages of migrant farm laborers (which is also an area ripe with abuse which also needs to be addressed). There are already too few younger people paying into Social Security and Medicare to provide for the too many older people. The Biden administration should be making the case for increased immigration to the American people. And where is Kamala Harris, the administration's point person on immigration? She's doing more than nothing, but only just barely. If I were to characterize the situation in general terms I would say this: Trump saw migrants as evil and was able to make their lives miserable. I don't see that as who we are. I think we're better than that. But Biden became president and migrants' lives are still miserable. That's why I fault Biden for his handling of immigration related issues. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
A short piece in a recent Scientific American ( I Gave ChatGPT an IQ Test. Here's What I Discovered - Scientific American ) gave ChatGPT an intelligence test and found it ranked in the 99th percentile, higher even than himself.
But he also found more evidence that intelligence tests don't actually measure intelligence. They are more a measure of a specific body of knowledge than of intelligence. That's why a native speaker of English from South Africa, Zimbabwe or Australia measures lower on an American IQ test than on one of their own. ChatGPT can correlate huge reams of information, but it cannot reason, and this is demonstrated by it's inability to answer this question:
What is the first name of the father of Sebastian's children? Not finding sufficient information in its database to determine which Sebastian was meant, ChatGPT explained that it could not answer the question. If anyone can think of other questions that might stump ChatGPT give them a try and let us know what happens, or post the question here and I'll ask it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I gave it the truth teller/liar riddle, but the answer to that is all over the Internet and it had no trouble with it.
It now gets the "Sebastian" question correct, but with incorrect reasoning:
ChatGPT Conversation: It accepted a correction and restated the reasoning correctly. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I'm finding this all hilarious, whether original or not.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I gave ChatGPT this problem:
The Vicar Problem: It calculated that the vicar is 126 years old, obviously wrong. I asked it to find the error and it came up with the same wrong answer. I told it the answer and it came up with a different wrong answer. I asked it to try again and it got the right answer, but I think it fudged the math because it got the wrong ages for the congregants. I have to leave in 5 minutes and can't check where it went wrong right now. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I just asked ChatGPT to generate some original spoonerisms. It did, but they were terrible. It's not a shining wit.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I asked ChatGPT to "compose a sentence about table manners that appears to be written by someone who is semi-literate." It replied:
ChatGPT: This contains an inconsistency, first implying the person didn't know the word for "fork" when it use the term "them stick thingies" and then a few words later using the word "fork". --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024