Truman Peyote posted:

im more of a cyberhunk myself

ADINSX posted:

I’m getting a little tired of cyberpunk and hope that this is the year of cyberfunk

Sweevo posted:

2023 is the year of the grey goo - the cybergunk if you will

Beeftweeter posted:

i'm kinda ambivalent about wanda, pootie tang is just funny in general imo

Deep Dish Fuckfest posted:

they're top tier cyberspooks, natural enemies of cyberpunks

RokosCockatrice posted:

Mr Devereaux here states outright that statistical relationships between words are fundamentally different than knowledge, which is sort of a stupid thing to assume. I "know" harry potter rides a magic broom, despite my only experience with harry potter and his magic broom is because they were arranged in a certain way on the pages of a book, how is that not knowledge if chatgpt can both know and communicate about the same thing by also just knowing relationships between words.

He also states that an essay is, of his own definition, certain steps to create as an essay, so therefore gpt cannot create essays because it didn't do the legwork he prescribed. Which is garbage. You can fart out a good essay about a subject without going through his steps, and if you want to say "your prior knowledge of the effects of furry culture on the mascot suit industry maps to the same steps" then you can make the same argument about chatgpt's training and modeling and synthesis steps mapping just as easily.

The best argument he makes is that using chatgpt to create your college essays for you is bad because the essays it writes are bad (it doesn't adhere to the truth well enough).

There's a much better argument to be made that the purpose of his class and his college in general is to teach students how to learn and think and synthesize new ideas, but that doesn't actually result in the conclusion "so obviously there's no place for language models in that process". If chatgpt's essays didn't suck, they would be an invaluable resource for learning about a subject and its related fields, and as a source for your own process of synthesizing ideas and trying to communicate them.

haveblue posted:

kinda surprised chinese rooms haven't come up more in chatgpt discourse. that's basically what the language model is, a huge collection of relationships between opaque symbols. is comprehension an emergent property of a sufficiently large collection of such things? I don't think there is a clear or even widely accepted answer to that, but at any rate chatgpt isn't sufficiently advanced to be in that grey area (yet)

quote:

As an AI language model, ChatGPT is capable of generating text responses to a wide range of prompts and questions. However, it is important to note that ChatGPT does not possess intelligence in the same way that humans or animals do.

Intelligence involves a wide range of cognitive abilities such as perception, learning, reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making, which are still not fully understood or replicated by artificial intelligence systems like ChatGPT.

ChatGPT relies on pre-existing data and algorithms to generate responses, and while it can produce impressive results, it does not have the ability to think, learn, or reason independently. Its responses are limited by the data it has been trained on and the algorithms it uses, which means it cannot truly understand or empathize with users in the way that humans can.

In summary, ChatGPT is not intelligent because it lacks the capacity for independent thought, learning, and reasoning that are essential components of human intelligence.

Sagebrush posted:

no it isn't. people are broadly credulous and superstitious, and they have a natural tendency to anthropomorphize everything, and they can be fooled by incredibly dumb tricks.

NoneMoreNegative posted:

GPTea

infernal machines posted:

rotor posted:

honestly would it have killed them to add two more?

infernal machines posted:

not everything is going to be a skeletal phallus

infernal machines posted:

digital haruspicy