I dont think so. Admittedtly I live in a peculiar bubble (mix of scientists, artists and programmers) but nobody that I know personally talks about chatbots in neutral terms, let alone in favorable ones.
If we take chatgpt and the ones from the other brands as neutral entities we as a society have a lot of work and self-reflection to do.
Quoting a chatbot in an article that is not related to a chatbot felt offputting and weird. I had to stop reading, because it somehow undermined any interest i had in the article
difficulties in life and genetics are more of a reason to decelop a severe addiction. Quality is probably not so much of importance - people still smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.
It feels like we forgot about the opiod epidemic, meth, crack..
Anyhow, I think this derailed enough. I just wanted to point out the weird protestant views of op.
>Humanity has discarded natural selection thanks to modern medicine. Gene mutations that would have meant someone didn't survive now can be treated.
There is still selection going on and it is difficult to argue that it is not natural. The pressures we are exposed to are just not consistent with some idealized natural state and thus seem "unnatural".
Be careful, "natural selection" is a specific descriptor that describes a selection process that is contrasted by "artificial selection". The second one comes up from time to time in human context; we call it "eugenics".
I'd wager it is the strongest. Most of the arguments always argue in quantities. So and so much of energy waster per hour, this many job losses and that growing trend of delusions supported by LLMs.
We've already seen it with climate change. Arguing with statistical factoids is too ethereal for anyone and leads to some kind of fatigue. There is no emotional difference between 100 mWh and 10000 mWh. But a "I had to bring my dog to the vet because chatGPT told me to give it chocolate" will convince anyone to deeply distrust technology.
FAANG and its acolytes deprived us from actual connection with our environment. Judging the argument as weak is sad proof of that.
So how about instead of using the slot-machine that chatGPT is, we go visit our grandma, hug our dad or just get a new houseplant :)
I checked the BlEU-Score and Perplexity of popular models and both have stagnated around 2021. As a disclaimer this was a cursory check and I didn't dive into the details of how individuals scores were evaluated.
>I feel the opposite, and pretty much every metric we have shows basically linear improvement of these models over time.
Wait, what kind of metric are you talking about? When I did my masters in 2023 SOTA models where trying to push the boundaries by minuscule amounts. And sometimes blatantly changing the way they measure "success" to beat the previous SOTA
I'm not sure what your comment is trying to convey. From my experience Meditations is basic and doesn't offer any substance. Popular Stoicism has a lot of legitimate criticism and is very often misused and glamorized in right-wing spaces. So the label "right-coded" seems appropriate.
All in all your comment caused some confusion. I know a handful of "extreme" left-wing, liberal arts people who are enamoured by "Fanged Noumena" whose author is the infamous nrx, 'hyper-racist' father of accelerationism Nick Land. So the politics don't seem to be the problem.
My gut instinct was that you have fallen for the meme/propaganda, as I have seen similar talking points being repeated on other sites. Maybe you can give me a more detailed explanations of what you're trying to get at.
How "subtle and insidious" is it really?
I'd say it is shifting the blame of personal responsability to a website. Me and some of my friends use(d) 4chan and we never fell into the pipeline. To the contrary there is a strong left-wing camarederie. And I'd wager that we recognize subtle right-wing views more easily. One doesn't learn about these views by looking at a twitter screenshot but by engaging them.
We should stop treating right-wing ideology as a mind-parasite. And if we do it anyways, we should accept that some people want to get "infected".
4chan and I'm not ashamed of it. Even though it is anonymous you really feel a sense of community. Approach it as a creative writing exercise or as being part of a hive-mind and you'll find enjoyment in it.
The amount of authentic and inspired posts is incredible. And yes it has it's ugly parts, they don't get a lot of traction though.
I guess that part of its unattractiveness is deliberate. No advertisers want to touch it and that is probably why it survived for so long.
I beg to differ, I was interested and looked at flux pro.
The rendering is impressive and looks like the output of a larger organization or a dedicated professional. But it's just that. It feels a bit like most people don't really interact with art, except on ads, movie poster and the like. And I guess those images are good for being displayed on a screen.
Maybe this (cliche) analogy will help my point. Art is like sex. Apparently most people have only seen porn and think the machines are incredible at sex. But they are confusing one for the other
We have to look not far from our own field to see a replication crisis brewing. The results in ML papers are obviously moving in the same direction, all while beating SOTA by miniscule amounts.
IMO psychology became a lot less interesting when it tried to become more scientific.
The connection between beauty and pleasantness seems to be much weaker than suggested.
There are things that are pleasent and lack any form of particular beauty. To mind come, interior decoration, roman statues, tiktok-videos..
And there are things that have inherent beauty partly because of their wretchedness and being unpleasant. Prime example would be greek tragedy. You and the protagonist know that it will end horribly and it is almost torture to see it unfold. But still, it is beautiful.
To go a bit deeper on attration and beauty. My personal experience showed me that beauty tends to be a (surprisingly low) threshold requirement for attraction.
Very human, why should I trust some matrix-multiplication and gradient descent on deeply personal questions. For sure that guy in the mirror looks amicable, but you don't get much out of it when trying to flirt with a mirror.
I have to try out GPT-4, but I don't think it will be able to help me with my hobby. Like getting the feel of a painting right, whereas my friends have an easy time pointing out flaws or give recommendations beyond some technical irrelevancy
It is very hard to ignore the instinct of replying to the toxic statement with a sarcastic "no u".
Nevertheless I'll try to put this in neutral terms. Hopefully I get my point across without sounding too punchy.
I'm at work to work. It sometimes feels like managers and companies put you in a double-bind. On one hand I am supposed to be a factory-line worker, solving ticket after ticket. Make whatever metric go up so to speak. On the other I'm supposed to be part of a "community", get involved, be proactive, show my brilliance and creativity..
I've found that I have to place heavy emphasis on the code-monkey side of things. Even if the internal communication is the other way around (e.g. by the usage of the word toxic). Because creativity happens for its own sake, shipping product is a second thought at best. We framed the market in rigid and mechanical terms. And Ii the end we have to abide to that sterility in order to succeed.
If we take chatgpt and the ones from the other brands as neutral entities we as a society have a lot of work and self-reflection to do.