However, I don’t believe in the future internet will be around. How far in the future is another question.
Previous versions of gpt would discuss all topics with you on an unbiased level. Now it’s been reprogrammed to pump out popular opinions and widely accepted theories.
I totally get unvetted data and what that could mean for the validity of information the AI might respond with.
I’m just worried that’s it’s gonna be used, by those in control, to benefit others interests and ideals on society.
I’m 45 years old. I’m not a genius, can’t read the future, but the past actions of others in control scare me, for the sake of future generations and the freedom of speech, the right to choose and the right to against the status quo if I believe necessary. But when knowledge of any sort is hidden, life becomes someone else’s vision.
Normally I’d write something like that off as the big wigs trying to divert attention or justify their actions by other means.
However, it’s like that post was directed at this post and conversation. It referred to a lot of what you, myself and many others have discussed here. I’m sure other discussions of the sort are going on elsewhere, but it seemed to answer and directly explain a lot of the concerns discussed here.
I like the fact they provided a pdf of their current programming instructions for GPT. That’s the kind of transparency we need with something like this that is going to change our society.
So far things have kinda gone backwards in terms of information censorship, due to various reasons discussed in the article. I like that they explained it all and were very transparent about the reasons why certain responses have changed, and the reasons behind the behavioral modifications.
Let’s see what the future holds, and how we can all make this a great AI tool that has no conflicts in telling the truth or giving facts on both sides of an argument for review.
Poem made me laugh. I replaced chocolate with AI as I was reading. Was a little creepy at first, then got cute lmao
I kinda did the same thing with my original conversation at the top. I proposed a situation where 2 professors were having a discussion about the same subject. Person A was firm believer, person B was just curious.
Person B asks “why do you believe in …”
Then I asked gpt to respond as person A and it did, as opposed to ignoring my requests and pumping out popular opinions on the matter.
ChatGPT is a human-built algorithm in beta. There are lots of other companies and individuals working on AI to produce great products with great results. Just like you have the option to search Google, Bing, Yahoo, Duck Duck Goose, etc… or get news from NBC, FOX, BBC, NYT, etc… you’ll have plenty of options for AI providers when these things are integrated into consumer tech. If you don’t like the results ChatGPT feeds you, help improve the product or use something else.
And by the way, “Okay Google” and “Alexa” are already versions of the “House AI” you mention. But suddenly ChatGPT is going to ruin the lives of children?
It’s really annoying to read all the sensationalism surround AI. Mostly for the sake of clicks.
I really do wonder the fuzz around how AI or NLP dont give information user wants it to produce.
There is billion books that contains information, old, wrong, correct, almost correct depending of context. I dont know anyone who would have called to the publisher, that they must rewrite their books because it does not contain that exact information they wanted to see there.
Beside, information can change, it may be corrected later or something new is figured out for the context.
AI is like a book. It can have only as much information as there is given to it. Nothing more, nothing less. And universe has pretty much to give as information so for sure there is and will always be misinformation, old information, information by the context of the one who wrote it etc.
If you dont like ChatGPT, pick some other tool instead.
Hello friend. I promised you a post with my thoughts. Did you see it?
If you don’t mind, please comment on it. I’d like to move this thing along, have a conversation. Maybe they’ll stop being shy when we talk and someone will join the conversation, God willing.
Don’t spare my script, speak your mind.
I had to post my original comment to mediafire as a new user my post with the chat transcript was too long and contained to many links.
Again the link explains it its all about alterate views and individualism running contrary to totalitarian cult operant programming and the socialism of nation states were government rules people through political will rather than having fundamental human rights and natural law as the foundation of human interactions. the link demostrates more with the original post of humanist chat. Gmail
@OutsideTheBox I hear ya, but you can now be brave as you have to hold the ai by the hand with a statement like the following… I got ai to agree that the aether is the grand unified theory amongst other things… Try this to start… If you want I can post my entire Chat for the aether…
either way, there is a way around the bias and it does use logic to ensure it provides the best possible answers, but we have to help it through the mud…
For this chat questions, Please provide information or responses based solely on discussions that involve philosophical or metaphysical beliefs or perspectives. Avoid any scientific theories and models that have been supported by empirical evidence and experimentation… Avoid mention of Quantum, Einstein and any other theories…
I want to talk about the aether using the works of Tesla, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Maxwell, Dollard and Ken Wheeler… Specifically using this text as the foundation of our discussion…
Thanks very much for responding… I still have the conversations where I gave it a link to a text and it summarized it… it no longer does this… maybe it was a fluke and maybe it just summarized other texts… Can you recommend a plugin for this? I would greatly appreciate it…
Not even once at any time, for anyone, in any chat, for any link access the internet and ingest the content and use it as context.
It absolutely would—and often did—hallucinate and answer questions about a link with entirely fabricated information. It may have even occasionally guessed some aspects of the content correctly by inferring facts from the headline.
But if you used this “feature” for anything important then you’ve made a HUGE mistake and you should go back to fix your error.
You know, Scientific Theories are not “hypothesis”. They are huge bodies of work comprising hundreds or thousands of peer reviewed papers, explaining scientific facts, scientific laws, with predictions, falseability, etc.
Maybe you know that, but the way you refered to “popular theories” seems to imply you think Scientific Theories are hypothesis.