CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism

Re:CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive ... by mannykannot on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @11:02AM (#34519922)

Back in the 60s or 70s, it seemed a psychologist was finding solid evidence for telepathy, by having subjects guess the symbol showing on a card being viewed by someone out of the room. It eventually turned out that he was doing things like finding some runs in the data where the subject was not naming the current symbol, but instead the prior or subsequent one better than chance, and counting those as successes. It seems to me that an ex post facto attribution of playfulness to a result that does not show knowledge is essentially the same.

ChatGPT was not designed to be either playful or helpful; it was designed to pick a likely next word, and repeat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive ... by jameshart on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @11:23AM (#34520203)

"ChatGPT was not designed to be either playful or helpful"

You don't think OpenAI thought putting it out for public access might serve some sort of purpose? They just created a technology based on an arbitrary algorithm without any thought as to what it might actually produce?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive ... by mannykannot on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @12:08PM (#34520942)

They designed it to do what I said (which is far from being an arbitrary algorithm), and then put it out there to find out what that would result in. Ex post facto anthropomorphizing about what some cherry-picked samples of output looks like does not even establish that it is doing those things, let alone that it was designed to do them.

[ Parent | on HN ]