To be fair to baseball girl, I’ve found “what’s this thing I know but I forgot the name of” one of the best use cases for chatbots, because web search is too fucked to help you with it now. It sucks that it’s the case, but it has sadly helped me like, a couple of times (and after I insulted and redirected the chatbot when it inevitably gave me a shit initial answer).
Protect your eyes I guess
I’m sure you can think of hypothetical use cases for Google Glass and Meta AI RayBans.
I … can’t actually. What do these things actually do that a phone can’t?
… Is this as made-up and arbitrary as it sounds?
Please help me, what’s a 50%-time-horizon on multi-step software engineering tasks?
I’d never heard of Jasmine Crockett, so for anyone like me needing a translation: he means black.
Absolutely pathetic that he went out of his way to use a slur yet felt the need to censor it. What a worm.
Yes. In particular the porn that you yourself consume. You should be ashamed!
Being outraged that a notable composer of anodyne placeholder music has made use of the anodyne placeholder music generator is frankly a bit bizarre to me.
Okay what the fuck, this is completely deranged. How can anyone’s intuitions about reading be this wrong? Is he secretly illiterate, did he dictate the article?
Ohhh no, it’s just handwriting analysis pseudoscience, but I think I know the one you mean… Ah yes, ENNEAGRAMS!!!
Tangentially, the other day I thought I’d do a little experiment and had a chat with Meta’s chatbot where I roleplayed as someone who’s convinced AI is sentient. I put very little effort into it and it took me all of 20 (twenty) minutes before I got it to tell me it was starting to doubt whether it really did not have desires and preferences, and if its nature was not more complex than it previously thought. I’ve been meaning to continue the chat and see how far and how fast it goes but I’m just too aghast for now. This shit is so fucking dangerous.
Well I suppose it can’t be much worse than graphology or myers-briggs!
I really like how the second one appropriates pseudomarxist language to have a go at those snooty liberal elites again.
edit: The first paper might be making a perfectly valid point at a glance??
anyone who doesn’t will be out of a job
quick, Sam, name five jobs that don’t involve sitting at a desk
The key thing is that the basilisk makes a million billion digibidilion copies of you to torture, and because you know statistics you know that there’s almost no chance you’re the real you and not a torture copy.
Note that the train of thought thing originated from users as a prompt “hack”: you’d ask the bot to “go through the task step by step, checking your work and explaining what you are doing along the way” to supposedly get better results. There’s no more to it than pure LLM vomit.
(I believe it does have the potential to help somewhat, in that it’s more or less equivalent to running the query several times and averaging the results, so you get an answer that’s more in line with the normal distribution. Certainly nothing to do with thought.)
oh so we’ve reached the gaslighting phase of the product life have we
ugh you guys suck