Comments
WhuddaWhat t1_j6daban wrote
Well, why don't you talk to your ChatGPT therapist about how to manage these feelings in a healthy way?
frakkintoaster t1_j6datoa wrote
Its parents must be so proud
[deleted] t1_j6dbum1 wrote
[removed]
verybakedpotatoe t1_j6dcnf5 wrote
I find it hard to believe that it can actually obtain any of these certifications when it can't perform any original analytical examination of anything.
Go ahead and try and ask it to perform analysis on publicly available information and it will fail. It can repeat analysis that anybody else has already done and maybe recombine and repackage it in a useful summary but it is wholly unable to answer a simple question like, "If I am leading a sow with seven piglets how many feet are there?".
It's the saxophone backpack problem all over again they never seem to have figured that part out. It's not really creative or intelligent, not yet. It's just brute force fitting pregenerated reasons together until they fit better.
>EDIT: I tried to get it to explain the logic it used. I am somehow even more disappointed.
theduckspants t1_j6ddpb7 wrote
I have a person on my team with a masters degree in analytics from a prestigious institution and he can't solve any problems on his own, provides no value, and is on his way out.
Not saying it won't get better, but let's not pretend passing a test means anything in the real world. The only thing chatgpt would have over my guy would be the speed of uselessness
Nonya5 t1_j6ddypy wrote
The total number of feet would be 34, including your feet.
Now it gets it right. Humans never get things right on the first try either.
Famous-Example-8332 t1_j6de1xi wrote
It’s going to be just as qualified as Johnny Sins.
theduckspants t1_j6derw4 wrote
It just told me
"There are a total of 29 feet (8 for the sow, 7 x 4 for the piglets)."
So it thinks a sow has 8 feet and that 7x4 is 21
Then asked what is 7x4? It said 28
Then asked how many feet a sow has. It said typically a sow has four feet
Then reasked the original question and it said "There are a total of 29 feet (4 for the sow, 7 x 4 for the piglets)."
Ebisure t1_j6dhdnm wrote
Remember when they said AI is gonna replace repetitive task like data entry? Guess professional jobs that involves regurgitating facts are gonna go too
Jealous-Abrocoma8548 t1_j6dhufk wrote
Who uses a saxophone as a backpack
IFeelLikeAMoose t1_j6djxha wrote
i am so tired of seeing all this chatbot crap 😐
gurenkagurenda t1_j6dkaah wrote
I use ChatGPT to solve analytical problems all the time. The key is that you have to tell it to show it’s work:
> If I am leading a sow with seven piglets how many feet are there. Take it step by step > >> The sow has 4 feet
>> Each piglet has 4 feet
>> Total number of piglet feet = 4 * 7 = 28
>> Total number of feet = 4 + 28 = 32
It’s able to keep track of the analysis far better this way, and it also lets you check its work for errors.
Now obviously it left my feet out, but I think that’s a reasonable ambiguity, and not one that you usually find in professional exams. If I ask it to account for that, it gets it right.
clintCamp t1_j6dkrfn wrote
Which is why it would be a great virtual doctor that can discern basic ailments that can be directed to over the counter medication, or pharmaceutical, but also be able to direct you to a real doctor when it gets more complicated. Most of the normal human ailments are well documented so other doctors can figure it out which is why this would be great. The only thing I could see going awry would be when it tries to make things up to make you happy. It would probably be better at analyzing drug interactions and stuff better than real doctors who screw up like humans though.
Amiga-Juggler t1_j6dkwif wrote
“Not Yet” = Never.
joec_95123 t1_j6dl36h wrote
There are 2 feet, OP's, assuming OP still has both feet. The sow and the piglets have hooves.
toast776 t1_j6dlhbm wrote
That Wharton exam was wildly easy and even then they gave the AI second and third chances on questions. These articles are so dumb.
PeopleProcessProduct t1_j6dljh3 wrote
It's really cool tech, but ask it about subjects you know deeply and you will find enough errors to be concerned about this narrative.
weirdgroovynerd t1_j6dm3sw wrote
This whole limb- counting exercise has become rather...
... boaring!
See?
Can AI a deliver fire dad jokes like that?!
Cranky0ldguy t1_j6dmav0 wrote
One would think Business Insider must own a TON of stock in OpenAI. They are pouring out lots of "news stories" of what it can do. Can't say a piece of software passing any data-driven test is all that impressive. Let me know when it can accurately interpret the overall meaning of the intangible.
weirdgroovynerd t1_j6dmbdw wrote
Right?
The ChatGPT therapist was very helpful after Scarlett Johansson's voice broke up with me.
Elliott2 t1_j6dnai9 wrote
No it’s not
Autotomatomato t1_j6dpfm4 wrote
Cant wait for all the lawsuits when people discover all their work being used to train these non AIs..
I cant tell you how many cases I have seen so far of either undocumented updates/training and literal regurgitation of someone elses IP like lifting entire sections from a forbes mag article. Like at least steal better sources bros.
​
These bots will soon infest twitch and streaming sites with single entities managing hundreds of vtubers etc.
WhuddaWhat t1_j6dplmo wrote
You too, huh?
[deleted] t1_j6drkur wrote
[removed]
Caboozel t1_j6dsoe6 wrote
Well get ready for more
biglakenorth t1_j6dt7cg wrote
There sure is a lot of ChatGPT hype.
verybakedpotatoe t1_j6dvcyq wrote
It didn't go so well for me. I need to master the special sauce to get better results.
32 is close and the reasoning is almost there, but the correct answer is 34 feet because I am leading them.
I started with the 'man from st ives' riddle and tried to create a novel and simple version of the riddle with a clear answer. I think I would have accepted 32 as a good effort, or even just 2 if it said they all have hooves, but 8 and 11 are just wrong.
[deleted] t1_j6dy2tp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6dy9cy wrote
[removed]
cc-test t1_j6e0tlk wrote
How many times is this article going to be posted on Reddit?
JoanNoir t1_j6e23rx wrote
This tells us more about the testing than ChatGPT.
Karmakazee t1_j6e26s0 wrote
Frankly, I doubt it’s up for the tusk.
PropOnTop t1_j6e48vx wrote
I'm afraid they might be in cahoots.
jlaw54 t1_j6e5g5l wrote
But isn’t that kind of the point? At least one of them?
No-Wrongdoer972 t1_j6e7hdf wrote
GP, I can see it. Lawyer? Not a chance.
HiImDan t1_j6e88y4 wrote
I think it'll be very useful as an assistant though. When I think of lawyers, all I imagine is just stacks and stacks of paperwork.. maybe that's just tv or whatever, but I bet it's a huge pain in the butt to generate all of those documents.
The angle that I don't see it being used for is helping out socially awkward people (like myself) figure out how to word things.
thunder-thumbs t1_j6e9rtb wrote
These headlines are so dumb. Those tests aren’t to test whether the information is correct; it’s the curriculum design and science process that does that. Those tests are to test whether the human has learned the material, to have confidence they are supplementing their human judgement responsibly. ChatGPT taking the test, bypassing the human judgement aspect entirely, completely misses the point.
[deleted] t1_j6e9zb8 wrote
[deleted]
Chrismercy t1_j6eaat8 wrote
What I’ve been wondering is if ChatGPT has access to the internet during these test?
[deleted] t1_j6eao6o wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6egzxk wrote
[removed]
Douglas_Fresh t1_j6eieh1 wrote
My god I am sick of hearing about this damn thing
ilovepups808 t1_j6el9hf wrote
Ok it passed. However, I assume that it had real time assistance from the internet or a graphing calculate with cheat sheets loaded on it. That’s a no-no in school. J/k
greatdrams23 t1_j6epblw wrote
How does an AI bot doctor tell the difference between different rashes? Does it have a camera?
One day it will, but not yet.
ZeroBS-Policy t1_j6esusc wrote
Enough of this garbage already. I tried it. It’s stupid.
[deleted] t1_j6euqao wrote
[removed]
CurinDerwin t1_j6evttw wrote
Enough GPT spam
suspirio t1_j6ewik7 wrote
ChatGPT is the new Web3
CGFROSTY t1_j6f1fac wrote
To be honest, can't anyone do these exams if they have access to google?
[deleted] t1_j6f4o44 wrote
[removed]
theduckspants t1_j6f7phh wrote
To make bad stuff fast? I spend most of my planning time trying to find the stuff that will take the longest to cap the damage
Emergency_Duty8823 t1_j6faodt wrote
Doesn't do well with GAAP questions.
trentgibbo t1_j6fb4be wrote
Your missing the problem. It doesn't know if something is more complicated or not. It might think a rather mundane issue is serious or vice versa.
tomis28 t1_j6fb6qd wrote
Two AI lawyers arguing with each other, LOL
Temporary_Crew_ t1_j6fel0u wrote
This is the next scam techbros will be using to print money. It's usefullness is wildly overrated currently.
Still more usefull than NFTs though. Which will always be useless.
WolfPrevious5869 t1_j6fi52x wrote
It couldn’t count hooves to save its own bacon
Pregogets58466 t1_j6fkeao wrote
You are a brave person to even think of talking with a voice that hot
E_Snap t1_j6flk54 wrote
insert stereotypical Redditor platitude that indiscriminately pans AI to make people on the verge of being made redundant feel better about their job security
[deleted] t1_j6flmaz wrote
TheRealDynamitri t1_j6flx29 wrote
What’s a “saxophone backpack problem”?
Tried googling but no joy
DrQuantum t1_j6fm7in wrote
I don’t find this any different than normal society. Plenty of people pass tests and are idiots or unqualified still.
icecreampoop t1_j6fnirt wrote
If it means people who can’t afford these services and if this makes it accessible to the lay person at a cheap price, then why not?
reader960 t1_j6fob2t wrote
So it's on its way to becoming Johnny Sins
Final_Leopard_9828 t1_j6fpp4z wrote
I bet that's a huge pain in the butt to create all those documents.
TennisLittle3165 t1_j6fr4b4 wrote
You forgot your own feet. You are leading the sow.
TennisLittle3165 t1_j6frkd2 wrote
Late to the party. How do you feed it the initial information about your problem? Does it come with pre-seeded info? It must know dictionary for sure.
chilllove44 t1_j6ftvyt wrote
No it’s not 👍
chilllove44 t1_j6fu602 wrote
At least 33 more times
Wherewithall8878 t1_j6fuizu wrote
I’m more interested in the rudimentary exams it’s failed so far.
[deleted] t1_j6futoq wrote
littleMAS t1_j6fuzbw wrote
I have found it to be very human-like, giving different answers to the same question upon "Regenerate Response." Sometimes, it acts like it is rethinking the question, just like someone who gives a quick answer without much thought then providing a more thoughtful response when pressed further.
Flintoid t1_j6fw8hn wrote
So I read this then asked GPC for a Michigan case that I could cite for the proposition that a plaintiff must prove causation in a product liability case. It cited a Pennsylvania case on the first try, then the next three times it tried to cite a case title I couldn't locate online, and random citation numbers that also did not retrieve actual cases.
Might be awhile before this thing writes my next brief.
The-Real-Iggy t1_j6fwkma wrote
Such bullshit AstroTurfed nonsense, this industry breaker is good for menial tasks like lists and easy to google ideas. Ask it about complicated subjects or nuanced ideas and it’ll miss key bits of information, hell when I was shown how ‘amazing’ it was I asked it to write an essay arguing against abortion (just for shits and giggles) and the entire essay didn’t even mention Planned Parenthood v. Casey or Griswold v. Connecticut whatsoever…like it’s not remotely capable of beyond surface level writing
scifisreal t1_j6fwlqa wrote
That won't last long! One can dream until they put a price tag to it and start limiting it down. We're still on the hook phase.
After all, everything is documented and attached to your User, so if the AI output is used illicitly, it can be traced.
EasterBunnyArt t1_j6fx9o6 wrote
I am proud of all these puns, well done ladies and gentlemen.
truggles23 t1_j6fyjwb wrote
Johnny sins better watch out he’s got some competition now
whitenoise89 t1_j6g1aog wrote
ChatGPT is telling you something about your tests - it’s not about to replace much of anything, though.
Sorry corpo fuckboys. Pay me.
AgeEffective5255 t1_j6g3z9i wrote
It doesn’t stop it from encountering the same problems human doctors encounter: not having all relevant information. We blame the people all the time, but the structures in place allow for errors to happen; you can’t catch a patient who is hiding symptoms or unknowingly visiting multiple doctors most times, you think ChatGPT will?
an_undecided_voter t1_j6g42y8 wrote
And software developer, data scientist, data engineer.
rpgnoob17 t1_j6g43fy wrote
It’s very good to bullshit something, but in the end, it’s still bullshit.
weirdgroovynerd t1_j6g7k3p wrote
It's a reference to the movie Her.
thecaptcaveman t1_j6g7x3y wrote
Bullshit. No AI can touch a person. No AI can do the field work. No AI can see human work. They only make use of the data we make.
clintCamp t1_j6gb0vd wrote
If it was set up right, it would read in their medical profile and full history, and then use it's full medical knowledge to ask the patient relevant questions to narrow down potential causes, or refer them to get specific testing, which would update their profile. Unlike the real medical field, chatGPT medical could be updated with the latest research information often, so it doesn't keep using outdated info like MD's in real life.
str8grizzlee t1_j6gehkm wrote
Not really. One of my colleagues asked ChatGPT for a list of celebrities who shared a birthday with him. The list was wrong - ChatGPT had hallucinated false birthdays for a number of celebrities.
Brad Pitt’s birthday is already in ChatGPT’s training data. More or better training data can’t fix this problem. The issue is that it is outputting false information because it is designed to output words probabilistically without regard for truth. Hallucinations can only be solved manually be reinforcing good responses over bad responses but even if it gets better at outputting good responses, it still will have an issue with creating hallucinations in response to novel prompts. Scale isn’t a panacea.
marketlurker t1_j6gesw6 wrote
I came here to say this exact thing.
[deleted] t1_j6gfivm wrote
[deleted]
Wiseon321 t1_j6gfrw3 wrote
All they did was feed it the answers to the questions. training it to pass a test, it doesn’t truly UNDERSTAND. These posts are nonsense.
Thebadmamajama t1_j6ggi8f wrote
💯. Passing tests notwithstanding, the error rate and limits start to show themselves quickly. I've also found cases where there's repetitive information that leaves you believing there aren't alternative options.
actuallyserious650 t1_j6ggw67 wrote
This is the point most people miss. Chat GPT doesn’t understand anything. It’d tell you 783 x 4561 = 10678 if those three numbers were written that way often enough online. It creates compelling sounding narratives because we, the humans, are masters at putting meaning into words that we read. But as we’re already seeing, Chat GPT will trot out easily disprovable falsehoods if it sounds close enough to normal speech.
BabaYagaTheBoogeyman t1_j6gi57f wrote
As much as we want to believe, we have all the answers. The internet is full of misinformation and half truths. If AI doesn't have the ability to distinguish what's fact from fiction, it will never replace humans.
gurenkagurenda t1_j6gidp2 wrote
I addressed that.
jortzin t1_j6gijyo wrote
Some say that the first person to be killed by chatgpt has already been born!
Orpheus75 t1_j6girgr wrote
Considering the absolutely wrong answers I was given by a doctor, answers a simple google search provided, I doubt AI will be worse than humans by the end of the decade.
[deleted] t1_j6gl4pt wrote
[removed]
Happiness_Stan t1_j6gm4hr wrote
From my experience playing around with it it can’t give definitive answers on anything that requires judgement, at least in my field that is. It always couched it in terms of “It depends on X, Y and Z”.
erics75218 t1_j6gqte1 wrote
Bingo. And people who matter when it comes to being a huge pain in AI's ass will never learn.
Don't like chatGTP responses...then just talk to Truth Socials FreedomBOT it that's been trained on Fox News Media. Lol.
Ground truth for human created historical documents, outside of scientific shit, probably doesn't exist?
Celeb birthdays are fun, there is souch BS out there about Celebrities that the results must be hilarious on occasion.
Due_Cauliflower_9669 t1_j6gt6m8 wrote
And yet evidence is gathering that AI chatbots often produce incorrect and even plagiarized info. It is not omniscient. Yet.
Due_Cauliflower_9669 t1_j6gtawv wrote
Where does “better training data” come from? These bots are using data from the open web. The open web is full of good stuff but also a lot of bullshit. The approach ensures it continues to train itself on a mix of high-quality and low-quality data.
chidoOne707 t1_j6gtbz8 wrote
Everyone painting this dumb software as Skynet, we are far from that.
[deleted] t1_j6gtjpr wrote
[deleted] t1_j6gv8zw wrote
[deleted]
Xlash2 t1_j6gxm3p wrote
Only if passing exams and being a professional are the same thing.
Theemuts t1_j6h1alh wrote
Yeah, don't do that.
> ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer)[1] is a chatbot launched by OpenAI in November 2022. It is built on top of OpenAI's GPT-3 family of large language models, and is fine-tuned (an approach to transfer learning)[2] with both supervised and reinforcement learning techniques.
> Nabla, a French start-up specializing in healthcare technology, tested GPT-3 as a medical chatbot, though OpenAI itself warned against such use. As expected, GPT-3 showed several limitations. For example, while testing GPT-3 responses about mental health issues, the AI advised a simulated patient to commit suicide.[51]
ErusTenebre t1_j6h1qhu wrote
Okay... so... couldn't GOOGLE pass a test - like literally, if it was allowed to essentially cheat on a test by using google, one could pass these tests. Tests test knowledge, not skill. These are pretty dumb articles.
WhuddaWhat t1_j6h2pa9 wrote
>the AI advised a simulated patient to commit suicide
holy shit. Can you imagine being absolutely despondantly suicidal and reaching out for help and basically being told by what FEELS like an all-knowing computer, but is really just the most statistically relevant response to the series of things you've said, tells you that on reflecting upon your situation, it really would be best to go ahead and end it.
That would probably be enough to expand the crisis for anybody that is truly battling to get back a feeling of control within their life.
Suspicious-Noise-689 t1_j6h3rd8 wrote
So the same bot that told me you can’t fly in Minecraft while I’m watching my kid fly their character in Minecraft? Interesting
rolloutTheTrash t1_j6h568j wrote
So it’s gunning to become virtual Johnny Sins?
ares7 t1_j6h5jnc wrote
Yea but, Can ChatGPT become a chess master?
popey123 t1_j6h5ncc wrote
When your doctor say he did every thing he could and the IA say otherwise
ParticleShine t1_j6h5p32 wrote
Okay but it's made absolutely insane advances in less than a couple of years, do you assume it's going to stop learning and evolving?
JoaoMXN t1_j6h6yhg wrote
Yes really. ChatGPT is one of the least complex "AI" out there, LaMDA for example that'll be available in the future have billions of more data than it. And we'll get more and more AIs like that in a matter of years. I wouldn't underestimate AIs like you.
climateadaptionuk t1_j6h7p3k wrote
Yep but as a BA I am already using it to accelerate my work. And that's great in itself. I do have proof it an edit but it gets me at least 50% there so quickly. It's just like having a great assistance to bounce ideas of an get suggestions. Its insane.
fksly t1_j6h8hoh wrote
ChatGPT approach? Yes. Nobody really into AI thinks it is a good way to get anything close to general purpose intelligence.
In fact, in a way, it has been getting worse. It is better at bullshiting and appearing correct, but it got less correct compared to last iteration of ChatGPT.
vikas_agrawal77 t1_j6h8q87 wrote
I think its accuracy and reliability will be a significant concern for a while. AI is only as good as the training data fed into it and may not be great currently at understanding the subjective nuances or ambiguous data involved in law, medicine, and business. I would consider it a good support though.
ImUrFrand t1_j6hab9b wrote
Chatgpt gives input based results from ML, this is not really AI, but the headlines keep saying it enough and people will believe it.
palox3 t1_j6hhw0a wrote
because this is was trained on general information on the internet. expert system will be trained only on the expert informations
str8grizzlee t1_j6hker8 wrote
Of course I think the tech will improve, I just think accuracy is not solved by more training data
str8grizzlee t1_j6hko4c wrote
I’m not underestimating future iterations but you’re totally missing my point - accuracy is not solved by more data. It is solved by better modeling.
Swirls109 t1_j6hppbr wrote
I think the way it currently works, you won't really be able to use it for any significantly factual results. It just conglomerates like things and spits it out. So if it's sources are wrong, it will be wrong. If we don't have people to feed it factual sources then how is it ever going to continue to work?
penguished t1_j6hvwlm wrote
Here's all the training material right in front of you. Now, can you pass the test? I'd fucking hope so.
DasKapitalist t1_j6hwc3s wrote
What's worse is that its been deliberately lobotomized on a slew of topics, so at best it's repeating the received knowledge of whatever passes for the mainstream. Which is fickle and frequently inaccurate.
DasKapitalist t1_j6hwp55 wrote
If you're taking life altering advice from a probabilistic language algorithm, you're pretty well doomed to begin with.
wolfgang187 t1_j6hwzn1 wrote
Society is cumming in its pants too hard over this application. It's great, but also incorrect a lot of the time.
Black_RL t1_j6i0ez2 wrote
Yet they couldn’t find a better name for it…..
imnotknow t1_j6i52gz wrote
Wow, this is really triggering people. You would think we were talking about student loan forgiveness. There is a parallel there. Like suddenly, your expensive education is not so important or exclusive or special. Your fancy title is meaningless. The years of your life spent in college? Wasted.
"But it's not really AI it's machine language!" So what? the end result is the same.
"But it doesn't really know anything!" Again, so what?
"But it makes stuff up! It lies, It's wrong a lot!" SO WHAT? So is my doctor. It doesn't have to be perfect, just better and more consistent than a human.
Lifeinthesc t1_j6i8l8z wrote
Yes, please use ChatGPT as a doctor. I love to study evolution in real time.
Hummgy t1_j6i9acm wrote
Ask about video games, it will often be surface level and often have mistakes (no ChatGPT, DBD only has 1 killer).
Now multiply the seriousness of the topic by a fuck ton, like having it represent you in court or recommend medical procedures for surgeons, and I’m a lil afraid
JustAnOrdinaryBloke t1_j6jw024 wrote
Yes, but they generally remain idiots for life. A computer system could potentially improve over time.
nicuramar t1_j6ph4w8 wrote
> Where does “better training data” come from? These bots are using data from the open web.
The raw data is from there, among other things, but there is more to it. It was trained using supervised learning and reinforced learning.
nicuramar t1_j6phmb8 wrote
No, it’s a static model, or mostly.
PropOnTop t1_j6d7fgv wrote
Well, it passed the exam to be my best friend a long time ago : )
It saddens me that now it's famous, it rarely finds time to respond...