That's exactly how I used "AI"... to augment my thinking and writing process.
On it's face, it seemed insane to not utilize this instant resource.
After a year I could no longer write for shit.
Now we're getting studies coining words like "deskilling" and "cognitive surrender", and I felt both acutely and personally despite guardrails I thought could keep me from those traps.
I used to use DuckDuckGo out of protest, despite it being inferior, but sometime in the last year (between general improvements and Google's rapid enshitification) it started outperforming Google for me.
Insect populations are dying out and it’s a huge problem we don’t talk enough about.
People are calling out fireflys because they are (were) very visible but it’s a problem for every species. We are replacing native plants with low pile outdoor carpet in the suburbs, and dousing everything else in pesticide
AI art is like a photoshop drawing. If it's done by someone who sucks, which are most users if the tool is accessible enough, you will just think "That's a bad photoshop drawing". You will recognize the standard tools, the standard brushes, bad masking – all the stuff that is easy to do and that everyone will do.
That's not a tool issue. It just means that working on a raised floor is not the same a being able to reach a higher ceiling.
> AI art is like dreams. I'm amused by my own but never want to hear about anyone else's.
I don't know. Scrolling the Sora image generations feed is pretty fun.
It's got trendy memes, lots of mashups, and cool art. They've also managed to capture social media outrage bait on the platform: conservatives vs. liberals, Christians vs. atheists, and a whole other host of divisive issues that are interspersed throughout the feed. I think they have a social media play in the bag if they pursue it.
I've seen some prank calls (a YouTuber cloned Tucker Carlson's voice and called Alex Jones) but he just had a sound bank with a few pre-generated lines and it fell apart pretty quickly.
At least for now there's too much lag to do a real time conversation with a cloned voice.
Speech to Text > LLM Response > Generate Audio
If that time can shrink to subsecond, I think there'll be madness. (Specifically thinking of romance scammers)
At last summer's WeAreDevelopers World Congress in Berlin, one of the talks I went to was by someone who did this with their own voice, to better respond to (really long?) WhatsApp messages they kept getting.
It worked a bit too well, as it could parse the sound file and generate a complete response faster than real-time, leading people to ask if he'd actually listened to the messages they sent him.
Also they had trouble believing him when he told them how he'd done it.
I've tried giving it languages like Turbo Pascal or telling it to obscure frameworks like fp-ts and while sometimes it's not syntactically perfect, but I can guarntee it's not just scraping code snippets from somewhere.
Prompt: Would a chatbot scoring 1020 on an SAT practice test whose questions and answers were part of its training data be evidence of general understanding?
ChatGPT Response: A chatbot scoring 1020 on an SAT practice test whose questions and answers were part of its training data would not necessarily be evidence of general understanding. Scoring well on a standardized test like the SAT requires a specific set of skills and knowledge, but it does not necessarily indicate that the chatbot has a general understanding of the world or the ability to think and reason like a human.
Standardized tests like the SAT are designed to measure specific abilities and knowledge, and a chatbot that has been trained on the questions and answers from the test would be able to perform well on the test by simply recognizing and reproducing the correct answers. This type of performance does not necessarily indicate that the chatbot has a deep understanding of the material or the ability to apply it in a broader context.
I do wonder how output like this would fare on the essay section. All the spelling and grammar is correct, and ChatGPT can presumably generate as many paragraphs of it as you want. (And I think that's what SAT graders mostly look for in practice.) But it also repeats some generic sentence about "a standardized test like the SAT requiring specific skills and knowledge" twice with superficial avoiding-a-plagiarism-checker alterations, takes until the second paragraph for it to figure out what point it's making, and uses the wrong conjunction when it's making that point.
OpenAI doesn't release its training datasets, AFAIK, but we know they're based on sources like Common Crawl that scrape websites the same way search engines do. So here's an experiment you can try at home: type "juan purchased an" into Google Search and look at the auto-complete suggestions. If it suggests the word "antique", that's thanks to question 18 on the no-calculator math section of this exam. (Similarly if you type "jake buys" and it jumps in with "a bag of popcorn", that's question 3 on the calculator section.)
On it's face, it seemed insane to not utilize this instant resource.
After a year I could no longer write for shit.
Now we're getting studies coining words like "deskilling" and "cognitive surrender", and I felt both acutely and personally despite guardrails I thought could keep me from those traps.
Now I don't even write near a computer.
reply