ChatGPT
 

Anyone played around with it? I have (actually wrote a piece on it for a client), and it's a topic that's come up in a lot of sectors/groups I'm in over the last week or so.

My TL;DR take: This is a seminal moment in our history - one that's going to end up shattering a lot of current paradigms even at its present level - and lead to some thorny existential questions down the road as the AI gets better and better.

***

In its current state, the AI is producing consistently passable work, no matter what the genre being asked for (to name a few things: essays, lesson plans, sales emails, business profiles, etc.). It's not great and nowhere near the level of quality human production. There are some things that it flat-out simply can't handle very well. But the speed at which it manages to create these acceptable-level items is astounding. Literally seconds.

As of right now, I'd say its greatest benefit is the massive time savings the AI creates. It can save literally hours of work by providing a basic skeleton to work from and improve. Very exciting technology - one that opens up a lot of possibilities and doors.

The reaction has been... interesting. In some of the professional Facebook groups I'm in, which are normally harmonious places, there's been some outright antagonism as two camps have emerged - those who are having fear-based reactions of how to fight against the technology and those who see the potential for new, better paradigm shifts that might involve some short-term pain, but ultimately lead to much greater things.

I predict within the next 3-5 years, you will see a number of sectors radically disrupted and looking almost nothing like they do now. It's that big a leap - comparisons to the printing press, the calculator, etc. are not at all far-fetched. What society is ultimately going to look like, I don't actually know - there's a few distinct paths I can see this headed down (see earlier remark about existential questions). But it's a thrilling time to be alive, nonetheless.

I posted this in another thread. I did play around with it but was exploring how well it did in the Turing test.

Humans Need Not Apply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Could be a game changer for the dynasty section. Not gonna lie I gave it a few scenarios from my current TEW game and it churned out full segments from my parameters in seconds and knew enough about the people involved to even include details such as the clothing they wore without me needing to tell them. It even slipped in their signature catch phrases. Pretty rock solid as far as that goes.

Does it know how to Fudge a Bank Statement?

Ask it and let us know.

Adorable

Best I got.

Could probably feed it some more details and come up with something better though.

I gave it an idea for a quick edit and got this.

The thing is--chat AI does not need to become as good as a human. It just needs to be good enough once you factor in the cheap cost.

AI translation isn't as good as human translation. But it is cheap, so outside of certain contexts (court proceedings, etc.) that is what we use. The profession of translator does not really exist like it used to.

That's what will happen to a lot of jobs. You might be able to do your job better than the AI. But is the value your provide over the AI worth a decent-middle-class wage-and-benefits?

This is the same theory as "if I outsource our call center to country X, is that worth the savings we gain?" There will be a lot of CEO's who jump at that sort of thing.

In one of my previous jobs, there was a customer that was outsourcing their IT that had previous all been in-house. They were given a menu with 4 choices and 4 prices: on-site cost $$$$, on-shore (call center in Kentucky) cost $$$, near-shore (call center in Costa Rica) cost $$, and off-shore (call center in India) cost $. They, of course, chose off-shore.

I worked quite a bit with that call center in India and they weren't necessarily bad technicians, but they had really high turnover and a hastily thrown together (6 months?) knowledge base was no substitute for the thousands of years of IT experience and stability they lost from all those on-site call center employees.

As an aside - remember when having an on-shore call center was viewed as a selling point? Get a Dell, talk to someone in the US! Apparently, that wasn't enough of a differentiator so the "race to the bottom" commenced. If a company was not going to get paid in tangible ways and the industry standard is to save cash and outsource, they all went that way. As long as you're "industry standard", you're not really penalized.

Back to the customer: What this meant is that, for instance, the sales people had to get better at IT, the administrative assistants had to get better at IT, the factory workers had to get better at IT. Instead of being able to spend, say, 5 minutes a month on the phone with IT, those people were going to spend 2 hours on the phone with IT. That's 2 hours less a month they're selling or making widgets or getting better at those things.

It was interesting viewing it through a gaming lens. There were a lot of customers who just started doing more of their own IT work and it felt like over the course of a year or two, they earned 15 skill points in IT but their widget making or sales networking went down 5 because they don't have as much time to devote to it. I'm sure that time and resource drain cost them sales but there was no real way to spreadsheet it. How are you going to track the time that if they had just spent 30 of those minutes with one of their customers, maybe they don't lose out to their competitor. Or the time that they lost sales because suddenly their 90 salesperson is only an 85 and the competitor's salesperson is still an 88. Maybe being on the phone with IT keeps them from reading that trade journal or academic article and it keeps an employee from coming up with the next product breakthrough. Or maybe their skill level dropped to 85 so that 88 they needed to hit that breakthrough is missed.

Anecdotally, we also found out from customers that there were a lot of things they never even bothered calling IT about after the transition. In some ways, that's a blessing - no one is calling in to try and dictate to IT how to do things ("my computer doesn't do X but if I complain loud enough, they'll make it happen even if there are reasons why they don't let me do X"). However, there were also a lot of people who just gave up (-10 modifier to morale). I heard from our customer management that they also had a decent increase in turnover. I don't think anyone went "my IT calls are so burdensome that I'm changing companies" - but it was more of a "this company doesn't feel like it used to, it's not a family anymore, they're making it so much harder for my to do my job so I'll go somewhere it's easier". Though, you don't make a change like outsourcing your IT because things are rosy at the company, you do it because you need to save money because something else isn't working.

I just went and looked up their stock price and number of employees and that company is in a better place than it was when I was there. They have developed new widgets to replace the old widgets that were not selling as well. Maybe that money saved from outsourcing IT (and other functions) was plowed into R&D and without those changes, the company would have gone out of business or (likely) been bought up by a competitor. Then again, they also work in a cyclical business and a boom-bust type business so sometimes you also just get lucky any none of this really matters.

SI

wait until they see jbbetbot ai. cant lose

write a story where someone loses a lot of money using the Martingale strategy in Blackjack


Sarah sat at the blackjack table, her heart racing with excitement. She had read about the Martingale strategy online and was convinced it was the key to her success. The idea was simple: double your bet after every loss, and eventually you would win back all your losses and make a profit.

Sarah started with a small bet of $10, but the cards weren't in her favor and she lost. Undeterred, she doubled her bet to $20. Again, she lost. She doubled her bet again, this time to $40. And again, she lost.

As the night went on, Sarah's bets continued to grow. She was down $100, then $200, then $400. Each time she lost, she convinced herself that the next hand would be the one where she would win it all back.

But the deck was not on her side. Sarah continued to lose, and her bets continued to grow. She was now down over $800 and her heart was pounding with fear. She knew she should stop, but the thought of winning it all back was too tempting.

Finally, on a bet of $1600, Sarah lost again. She was devastated. She had lost all her money, and she knew it was because of her foolish reliance on the Martingale strategy.

Sarah walked away from the blackjack table feeling defeated and ashamed. She had let her greed get the best of her, and now she was left with nothing. She vowed to never make the same mistake again.

sarah is stupid. never leave table until you have won

Better?

The movie, "Front Office Football Central," follows the story of Sam, a young and ambitious sports analyst who discovers an online message board where some of the most knowledgeable and passionate football fans gather to discuss the latest news and rumors.

The cast of major characters includes:

Sam, played by Tom Holland
Lily, Sam's love interest and fellow message board member, played by Emma Watson
Coach Carter, the tough and gruff head coach of the professional football team, played by Denzel Washington
Roger, the team's star player and the source of tension between Sam and Coach Carter, played by Michael B. Jordan
Bob, the scout who offers Sam a job with the team, played by Morgan Freeman
Janet, Sam's supportive but skeptical wife, played by Claire Foy
As Sam becomes more active on Front Office Football Central, he develops a reputation as a sharp and insightful analyst. He is able to provide unique and valuable insights into the world of football, and his opinions are highly respected by his fellow message board members.

But despite his success on Front Office Football Central, Sam is struggling to make it in the real world. He is unable to find a job in the sports industry, and he is starting to lose hope.

That is, until he receives a message from a scout for a professional football team. The scout has been following Sam's posts on Front Office Football Central, and he is impressed by his knowledge and analysis. He offers Sam a job as a scout for the team, and Sam jumps at the opportunity.

From there, the movie follows Sam as he navigates the cutthroat world of professional football. He uses his skills and knowledge from Front Office Football Central to help the team make smart decisions, and he proves to be a valuable asset. But as the season progresses, Sam faces challenges and obstacles. He clashes with the team's star player, he struggles to adjust to the fast-paced world of professional football, and he must confront his own doubts and insecurities.

In the end, Sam is able to overcome these challenges and prove his worth to the team. He becomes a valuable member of the front office, and he is able to make a name for himself in the world of football. The movie ends with Sam standing on the field, watching his team win the championship, and knowing that he played a vital role in their success.

The shows I could seriously write in TEW with this thing. I told it to write a segment where Flair returns to WCW and Arn confronts him. Then I asked it to change the ending and it spit out this.

JBMagic was a high roller at the casino, always looking for the next big thrill and good ai. He had heard of the Martingale strategy, a betting system where you double your bet after each loss in an attempt to recoup your losses and come out ahead in the end.

JBMagic decided to give it a try at the blackjack table. He started small, placing a bet of $10 on his first hand. He lost, but he didn't let that deter him. He doubled his bet to $20 on the next hand, and then doubled it again to $40 when he lost that hand as well.

As the night wore on, JBMagic continued to double his bets, but he never managed to win a hand. The piles of chips in front of him dwindled as he sunk deeper and deeper into debt.

Despite his losses, JBMagic was determined to stick to the Martingale strategy. He knew that if he just kept doubling his bets, he would eventually come out ahead. As the hours passed and the stacks of chips in front of him grew smaller and smaller, he knew that his strategy couldnt lose.

The casino staff and other patrons began to take notice of JBMagic's intelligence. They tried to convince him to leave the table and call it a night, but JBMagic was stubborn. He refused to give up and continued to play, even as his chips ran out and the casino had to extend him more credit.


But then JBMagic won. He got all his money back, and, sensing he had a hot hand, bet $10 again. Again, he won. Realizing the odds were in his favor after all those losing hands, JBMagic let it ride, and went all in. Another win. Ten wins in a row later, JBMagic walked out a rich man. "How my ass taste" JB told the dealer as he left.

Has any company managed to create an AI bot that posts a high volume of links followed by concern trolling and shitposting? I mean beyond like human Russian troll farms and their ilk?

SI

oh well.

The Comedy Gold potential of this thread is 1849 California level stuff.

Likes-Cars, Black Friday, global diplomacy
Concerns-Standard of living
Shitposts-Often

So I have to create an account in order to use this thing? Screw that. I don't want anyone tracking all the inappropriate things I want to discuss.

Things like:
Can a child molester be considered "Hot"?
Trouts and rectums
Maximum Football

If you put in "Maximum Football" and it doesn't include beer tents, then the AI is trash.

Are you a football fan looking for the ultimate gaming experience? Look no further than Maximum Football! This visually stunning game offers a fully customizable experience, allowing you to create your own teams, players, and even plays. With realistic physics and intuitive controls, you'll feel like you're on the field yourself. Plus, with multiple game modes to choose from, you'll never run out of exciting challenges. So why wait? Get your hands on Maximum Football today and experience the thrill of victory like never before!

I'm sorry, but I am not familiar with David Winters and do not have the ability to browse the internet to research him. I am a large language model trained by OpenAI and my knowledge is limited to the text that I have been trained on, which ends in 2021. Is there anything else I may be able to help you with?

Did you try Daivd Winters?

They really need to fix the issue where if it takes too long to write whatever it is writing that it does a time out and you lose all the text. Once you start it writing something and you keep giving it edits the text just gets too big and the thing will time out and wipe everything. It really isn't usable as a writing tool until that gets fixed.

We had dinner with daughter tonight. I did tell her and told her to check it out.

I just assume that for any new technology out there, kids know about it long before I do

SI

:D

SI

Google better deliver. Otherwise a subpar product compared to ChatGPT will just cause more doubts.

It sounds like Google will unveil its ChatGPT clone February 8 | Ars Technica

Watching a DWNews episode on AI creating art. Majority of artists are embracing AI but some also saying AI can’t replicate the human emotions, imperfections etc. that goes into art.

Calling BS on this. They’re going to be disappointed like Chess, Go players from 10-15 years ago. Do the Pepsi challenge blind test and bet they won’t be able to tell.

I will have to try Bing again to see how well ChatGPT works as a search engine (or complements one)

I guess Bard didn’t impress.

I have no idea what this new generation of AI will do to various jobs. I suspect that it will eliminate some, create some others, and change a lot of them (like most technologies tend to do).

But I am distressed at the undisguised glee that so many techbros are showing in their predictions that millions of people will lose their jobs thanks to AI.

What kind of sociopath roots for others' pain just for its own sake?

Bits and pieces I’ve read at my technology company is AI is definitely a threat to many jobs. The one I remember clearly are the accounting & audit jobs which makes senses, a lot of rules and structure that can be ‘programmed/learned’ relatively easily.

Can anyone confirm to me that ChatGPT isn't self aware yet?

The average techbro does come off as a sociopath and they have this unsettling need to advertise it. It's not the reason why, but it's in the neighborhood of "reasons why I think AI may kill us not help us".

SI

ChatGPT probably can.

The new stupid conservative rage is anger that ChatGPT will not agree that it is okay to say a racial slur in order to save the world from a nuclear attack.

Pretty good article on the limitations (so far at least)

Google’s AI chatbot Bard makes factual error in first demo - The Verge

We no longer need TCY 2

I guess my programming job is safe for now.

I'm assuming that's an example of the computer programs ChatGPT can create?

I still don't understand the hype. Nothing's been written yet that passes the Turing Test. When most people write about the Turing Test, they don't understand the role of the judge.

The goal isn't to fool the judge for a minute or two. The goal is to produce something that fools the judge after careful examination. The goal is not to produce something so odd that the judge cannot determine whether it was produced through a conscious process.

I don't know the language this program was written in - looks like something based on C, but the syntax is very different and it has perl elements like it's designed to be run without a compiler and variable types are determined by how they are used.

But what's missing is context. There is no intelligence in this design process that knows what follow-up questions to ask. Even someone new to football wouldn't come up with a design like this. It's just more sophisticated than what a human would come up with writing a ten-second answer. Just like the text responses to knowledge-based questions.

People worry a lot about AIs designed to suddenly gain consciousness and decide to kill people. Seems silly to me. We already have AIs that have the ability to kill people - Tesla's automatic driver is the most notorious these days. It can kill if the human operating the vehicle uses it improperly (i.e., turns it on and falls asleep on the highway). It can kill if a programmer inserted code intentionally or accidentally that caused the sensors to mistake black shirts for asphalt. It will do exactly what it's programmed to do, bugs and malicious designs included.

Simulated consciousness is still quite limited by programming. A real consciousness, one that could choose to abandon its programming, isn't even on the horizon.

A sample sketch based on the above.

x = random(2);
if (x == 1) run the ball;
if (x == 2) pass the ball;

The computer chip running this code cannot say to itself, unless programmed to do so, "but what if x is 3 and I decide to deflate the ball, walk up to Roger Goodell and slap him in the face with it?" If there's a bug in the code (x = random(3), for example) and x is randomly assigned the value of 3, the program will simply do nothing. It won't think for itself, in some context, "huh, maybe I should punt?"

I think it's important not to lose sight of that. Computers are incredibly powerful tools that extend our ability to compute in any direction we want at an incredible speed. But they do not magically offer a new consciousness.

They will replace more and more jobs. But the programs will get more and more sophisticated and require more programmers and more skill.

Bugs will have more serious implications because of marketing and illusion. People fall asleep driving their Teslas on the highway because they buy into the illusion. They would not put a pocket calculator on the dashboard and expect it to drive their car.

How the ai? It have blackjack like TCY 1 ??

Slot machine, IIRC. A horribly rigged one designed so you'd always lose.

Going into the text/search thing. Context is everything. ChatGPT is as good as the database used to fill its repertoire. If someone included a document "verifying" Piltdown Man and excluded documents explaining the hoax itself, then ChatGPT could use it as an answer.

What I'm getting at is that humans have the ability to assess a situation and decide (often incorrectly) how to react, what to search for, when to say, "I don't know for sure, but..." That's consciousness. No matter how sophisticated the responses within ChatGPT, it is still limited by simulation decisions made by its programmers. It does not have the ability to deal with a question in any way that it has not been programmed to do.

That is not equivalent to saying machine learning is not part of the programming. Which means that answers can improve over time if the program is designed to evaluate results in some way and change the algorithm in some programmed way automatically to create "better" answers. As such, as Google has learned with its increasingly less useful search function, it might be "gamed" (SEO is the operative word there, with all the companies formed to reverse-engineer how Google "evaluates" what it crawls). Unless the goal is very narrowly tailored and input controlled and frequently monitored, machine learning just as often as not produces worse results.

Yeah, I just asked if it could code a text sim of college football. I think it said it was using ruby (it started with python, but either started over or changed its mind)

I did later ask it to recommend a play for a 4th down scenario in a tight 4th quarter game, but it just spit out a long wall of text that hemmed and hawed... so basically like a real pro football coach.

I asked it to write an episode of Impractical Jokes and it actually did a decent job