Never realized I was so predictable

Are you sure you aren't an ai already? That's also one reason I'm not so sure about the analogy because humans are already so gigantically redundant and we have lots of other bots already. I don't think there's ever been a low background steel on the internet in any real capacity. Just now it's more radioactive than it used to be

I will check next time I have an opportunity. Ironically, the only way to prove I'm not an AI would be for me to post content that would be restricted in language models, so here comes my proof: shit©

That proves nothing, you could just be any of the uncensored LLama or Falcon models.

>Never realized I was so predictable

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"

Our entire personality and sense of identity is nothing but the reflection of ourselves in relation to eachother. The summation of all cultural input. A man in a void is no more than a beast.

Here's Tom with the weather

"It's gon' rain."

Sideways!

That sums up about 99.9% of humans saying things.

So really there’s not a distinction between language models and people. Other than the lack of decision making and planning, the actual communication side is identical.

I've seen no evidence ChatGPT has decision making or planning capabilities.

Then check out autogpt?

>No decision making ability

What prompts are you using? It helps me make decisions every day involving complex and nuanced criteria. GPT-4 (especially 32k API + plugins) is better than 95% of the directors, PMs, and CEOs I have worked under.

Exactly, that’s the feature we have that they’re missing

I think thats what's so unnerving about this stuff and driving all the "yeah but it actually sucks" type of articles.

The possibility that we really are just stochastic parrots is too much for people.

Language is a virus.

Sort by date <https://hn.algolia.com/?query=low%20background%20steel&sort=...> and skim through and you’ll see it’s way lower. The considerable majority of those matches are about actual low-background steel for its own sake, not for analogy with pre-LLM data (or once, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097752, pre-microtransaction games!). Nuclear-related topics come up pretty regularly on HN.

Five pages of results; past the first page, there are only five relevant matches. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23895706 three years ago (when it wasn’t yet a problem, but it was obvious it could become a problem), then the rest all within the last year (mostly this year) (when it is obviously becoming a problem), about thirty in total, half of which are multiple related comments. So the true number of times the prediction or analogy has been made is under twenty so far, and they’re mostly saying “like someone recently said” rather than coming up with the analogy by themselves.

The number seemed unrealistically high and I was curious. Now I have an answer! :-)

Thanks for clearing that up! It's nevertheless interesting to observe how multiple people come to the same analogy, or may be unconsciously affected by reading and then forgetting about it. Unfortunately I can't edit my original comment anymore.