Re:ChatGPT – The Revolutionary Bullshit Parrot
by pmoriarty on Friday March 31, 2023 @04:55PM
(#35393526)
"A parrot is a disaster if you ask it "What do you think of X""
Why need it be a disaster?
If its answer is useful, why bother about whether the answer was the result of thought or some other process?
Re:ChatGPT – The Revolutionary Bullshit Parrot
by ehsankia on Friday March 31, 2023 @05:28PM
(#35393922)
> What do you think of X
Most opinions you will hear from people are also just regurgitated amalgamation of things they have previously heard or read on the subject. Also, in general, being able to aggregate and summarize into words what hundreds of people thing about X seems like probably an even more useful tool than getting one person's thought, unless it's something no one has ever had any thought on before.
Even then, I don't think it would be outside the scope of possibility for the parrot to find things that are similar to X, find opinions on those, and somehow transpose those opinions onto X.
A parrot can be a good system if the problem is "Collect and sort the available data about X (and provide reference)".
A parrot is a disaster if you ask it "What do you think of X": a parrot does not think - unless you make it reason, verify and criticize its ontology, and at that point it is useless that we call it a "parrot".