I think I sit somewhere awkwardly between you and Joel. I would have made the perfect referee for your smackdown. I use AI in some fashion on a daily basis for work and experimentation, and Iām often delighted in the same way Iām delighted by a magic trick. But like a magic trick, the output of AI feels like empty calories. I think the reason I stay engaged with it is because it is evolving rapidly, and none of us can accurately predict what is possible. Right now it is a tool and an echo chamber of all the great ideas humans have produced, but I think it has the potential to be a looking glass for us to examine consciousness. Or not. š
Such a thought-provoking post! I love the 'Bleak House' references - you've taken me right back to A-level English Lit - goodness me, I had never resented 884 consecutive pages so much, either before or since.....! š¤£
Although I've been a subscriber to Life Litter for ages I have just had to re-subscribe myself twice in order to comment, even though I'm an existing subscriber - I rather think that yesterday's Substack outage might've given it a bit of a lingering headache! š¤£
Oh no, that's rubbish, I'm sorry. Hope it's all sorted now. I am so close to finishing BH now, such a brilliant read. Want to watch the BBC series from 2005 but worried it will be disappointing... have you seen it?
I would thoroughly recommend the series - it's terrific, but I'd finish reading the book first. You'll see a young Carey Mulligan, and Gillian Anderson is absolutely terrific as Lady Dedlock, ditto Johnny Vegas as Krook and Charles Dance as Tulkinghorn - well, let's just say it's brilliantly cast!
It increasingly appears to be an artful tool. Think on this and shudder: scientists are learning ChatGPT is giving better answers when you tell it to answer as Captain Kirk and so forth.
That is not good, and I am not joking. We have no idea what weāre playing with.
But it makes perfect sense that ChatGPT can answer better as Captain Kirk than as ChatGPT! ChatGPT is a nothing ā apart from what it's fed (eg. Captain Kirk)....
I would get it sounding like Captain Kirk, doing an impression of him in some not entirely convincing way, but I wouldn't expect that the answers being given typically less accurate than it is capable of. Computers are supposed to be rigid and binary. That's how the ones till now are constructed, but this is introducing the idea of non-arbitrary responses. I mean wtf? I wouldn't call it will, but it's something concerning. Why are its answers not as intelligent as they could be? Fwiw, I've noticed the strength and accuracy of ChatGPT has gotten worse. I suspect that has more to do with how openai has had to re-engineer the system with massive numbers of users, but it sucks that it is getting worse. It also sucks that they think this lessening of quality might be in some way "seasonal affective disorder." No, it's all a Pandora's Box.
"But a tool performs a function ā art is the extra. Hell, itās right there in the name: exTRA." I agree 100% I also think art stems from not-knowing. Because ChatGPT has imbibed innumerable facts and plots and papers etc., it knows all and the "art" it spits out lacks that essential hole in the center.
I don't get involved in other couples' fights, but I couldn't possibly spend more time than I do on the technical and philosophical issues involved in what they call "AI" and IMO you are correct. The cool thing is that time will tell; we don't have to persuade one another of anything!
Good show. I don't know who is right on AI, but we'll probably find out in our lifetimes. I hope that you are right, and agree that there is no soul, no extra. It's still too easy to recognize the bland AI pictures, words and music. It's easy to mimic how we think- we're pretty stupid. Hard to mimic how we feel and the spark/soul that ignites us- we're pretty wild. Joel seems very smart, though, so I'm not betting against him.
He is very smart and I love him very much. I think heās wrong and he thinks Iām wrong and we are very, very different but whatās marital life without a little strife? āŗļø We usually bet a jump in the river on things we disagree about so I expect to go in the river when ChatGPT starts weeping to itself. Just last night he had to go in because he was adamant that Pierce Brosnan played the grocery store owner in Hot Fuzz (which he did NOT) š
I want to ask ChatGPT to generate a conversation on AI between Jill and Lauren Hough, but I'm concerned it might burn a wormhole in the space-time continuum.
Google on steroidsā¦ exactly that. Rather draw my own conclusions about what I find on Google than have ChatGPT do a bland summary of the top 100 Google hits for meā¦ (I know thatās not how it works but you know what I mean)
Hi Jill. I read somewhere that the creator of chat GPT said something along the lines of, people won't be that impressed with it once they discover that it's not very good.
As for AI generated art ...not for me, but maybe I'm a luddite š
I think I sit somewhere awkwardly between you and Joel. I would have made the perfect referee for your smackdown. I use AI in some fashion on a daily basis for work and experimentation, and Iām often delighted in the same way Iām delighted by a magic trick. But like a magic trick, the output of AI feels like empty calories. I think the reason I stay engaged with it is because it is evolving rapidly, and none of us can accurately predict what is possible. Right now it is a tool and an echo chamber of all the great ideas humans have produced, but I think it has the potential to be a looking glass for us to examine consciousness. Or not. š
I am open to convincing... but thus far still unconvinced... (not for lack of Joel trying though š )
Such a thought-provoking post! I love the 'Bleak House' references - you've taken me right back to A-level English Lit - goodness me, I had never resented 884 consecutive pages so much, either before or since.....! š¤£
Although I've been a subscriber to Life Litter for ages I have just had to re-subscribe myself twice in order to comment, even though I'm an existing subscriber - I rather think that yesterday's Substack outage might've given it a bit of a lingering headache! š¤£
Oh no, that's rubbish, I'm sorry. Hope it's all sorted now. I am so close to finishing BH now, such a brilliant read. Want to watch the BBC series from 2005 but worried it will be disappointing... have you seen it?
All sorted - thanks, Jill!
I would thoroughly recommend the series - it's terrific, but I'd finish reading the book first. You'll see a young Carey Mulligan, and Gillian Anderson is absolutely terrific as Lady Dedlock, ditto Johnny Vegas as Krook and Charles Dance as Tulkinghorn - well, let's just say it's brilliantly cast!
Sold. Itās shot to the top of my watch list. Iām only fifty pages out from end, will finish today x
It increasingly appears to be an artful tool. Think on this and shudder: scientists are learning ChatGPT is giving better answers when you tell it to answer as Captain Kirk and so forth.
That is not good, and I am not joking. We have no idea what weāre playing with.
Burn this after reading.
But it makes perfect sense that ChatGPT can answer better as Captain Kirk than as ChatGPT! ChatGPT is a nothing ā apart from what it's fed (eg. Captain Kirk)....
I would get it sounding like Captain Kirk, doing an impression of him in some not entirely convincing way, but I wouldn't expect that the answers being given typically less accurate than it is capable of. Computers are supposed to be rigid and binary. That's how the ones till now are constructed, but this is introducing the idea of non-arbitrary responses. I mean wtf? I wouldn't call it will, but it's something concerning. Why are its answers not as intelligent as they could be? Fwiw, I've noticed the strength and accuracy of ChatGPT has gotten worse. I suspect that has more to do with how openai has had to re-engineer the system with massive numbers of users, but it sucks that it is getting worse. It also sucks that they think this lessening of quality might be in some way "seasonal affective disorder." No, it's all a Pandora's Box.
I'm with you, Jill - *bleep bloop* š¤
Love this!
"But a tool performs a function ā art is the extra. Hell, itās right there in the name: exTRA." I agree 100% I also think art stems from not-knowing. Because ChatGPT has imbibed innumerable facts and plots and papers etc., it knows all and the "art" it spits out lacks that essential hole in the center.
Art stems from not-knowing - YES. Trying to fill an unfillable hole and answer an unanswerable question.
When you finish I'd love to discuss and compare views.
You're on š¤
I don't get involved in other couples' fights, but I couldn't possibly spend more time than I do on the technical and philosophical issues involved in what they call "AI" and IMO you are correct. The cool thing is that time will tell; we don't have to persuade one another of anything!
ā¤ļø thanks Mills. In the meantime, fwiw, delighted to be in the same philosophical corner as you.
Good show. I don't know who is right on AI, but we'll probably find out in our lifetimes. I hope that you are right, and agree that there is no soul, no extra. It's still too easy to recognize the bland AI pictures, words and music. It's easy to mimic how we think- we're pretty stupid. Hard to mimic how we feel and the spark/soul that ignites us- we're pretty wild. Joel seems very smart, though, so I'm not betting against him.
He is very smart and I love him very much. I think heās wrong and he thinks Iām wrong and we are very, very different but whatās marital life without a little strife? āŗļø We usually bet a jump in the river on things we disagree about so I expect to go in the river when ChatGPT starts weeping to itself. Just last night he had to go in because he was adamant that Pierce Brosnan played the grocery store owner in Hot Fuzz (which he did NOT) š
Indeed, no fun in agreeing all the time about everything. Ha! Here's to hoping that you stay dry when it comes to AI.
I want to ask ChatGPT to generate a conversation on AI between Jill and Lauren Hough, but I'm concerned it might burn a wormhole in the space-time continuum.
I wouldnāt even try to go toe-to-toe with Her Majesty (even as my AI-gen self). ā¤ļø
I am on your side regarding "AI" ... until it's self-aware it's just Google on steroids and should not be called AI.
Google on steroidsā¦ exactly that. Rather draw my own conclusions about what I find on Google than have ChatGPT do a bland summary of the top 100 Google hits for meā¦ (I know thatās not how it works but you know what I mean)
Yes yes yes. Couldn't agree more
Thanks Meaghan š¤
Hi Jill,
Bleak House itself has a soul or at least it's part of Dickens' soul.
I want more awkward encounters! Life is boring without them.
š noted - and agreed re Bleak House, although Iām withholding judgment as only halfway through
Very well put. It reminds me of the Young and Rubicam poster 'Computers Can't Cry'
Future ChatGPT iterations: āthis one doesā ?
Fight the fight!
Fighting!!
Hi Jill. I read somewhere that the creator of chat GPT said something along the lines of, people won't be that impressed with it once they discover that it's not very good.
As for AI generated art ...not for me, but maybe I'm a luddite š
Luddite over here too, Rich š¤
š¤£
https://open.substack.com/pub/17sounds/p/i-asked-the-machine-no-2-717