ChatGPT thread

[Spike]

I was a little afraid of the answer to this:

Write some dialogue byJD Salinger:

Sure, here's an example of dialogue by J.D. Salinger:

"You know what I mean, don't you?" she said, her eyes narrowing.

"I'm not sure I do," he replied, taking a drag on his cigarette.

"I mean, don't you ever feel like you're just going through the motions? Like everything is pointless and nothing really matters?"

He exhaled a cloud of smoke, watching it rise up towards the ceiling. "I know what you mean," he said, his voice low. "Sometimes it feels like we're all just waiting for something to happen, but we don't even know what it is."

"Exactly," she said, a hint of desperation creeping into her voice. "I just feel like I'm stuck, you know? Like I'm never going to break free of this monotony."

He took another drag on his cigarette, thinking. "Maybe we just need to find something worth fighting for. Something that gives our lives meaning."

She looked at him, her eyes softening. "Do you really think that's possible?"

He smiled, a hint of wistfulness in his eyes. "I have to believe it is. Otherwise, what's the point?"

I'm still being a little surprised that the writing itself is pretty good, and a little happy that the impersonation itself is not, happy that the thing doesn't have (yet, I hope) much talent.

 

[sfoster]

I was a little afraid of the answer to this:

Write some dialogue byJD Salinger:



I'm still being a little surprised that the writing itself is pretty good, and a little happy that the impersonation itself is not, happy that the thing doesn't have (yet, I hope) much talent.

Dialogue is a particularly weak point. Ironic for a chat bot.

 

[Spike]

We, my family, used to have an old player piano, with rolls of early 20th century songs. One of them we liked to sing was titled:

Who takes care of the caretaker's daughter while the caretaker's busy taking care?

Gee oh gosh oh gee, that's what worries me. So I asked the robot:

The answer to this question depends on the specific circumstances of the caretaker and their family. In some cases, the caretaker may have a partner or spouse who takes care of their daughter while they are busy with their caregiving duties. In other cases, the caretaker may rely on friends or family members to help with childcare or may hire a nanny or babysitter to provide care.

It's also possible that the caretaker's daughter may be old enough to care for herself, or that the caretaker has arranged for after-school programs or other activities to keep their daughter occupied while they are busy.

Caring for a loved one can be a demanding and challenging role, and it's important for caregivers to have support and resources to help them balance their caregiving responsibilities with other aspects of their lives, including childcare. Many communities offer support groups, respite care services, and other resources for caregivers to help them manage the challenges of caring for a loved one while also taking care of their own needs and responsibilities.

A pretty reasonable response, Mr. Robot. Well done.

 

[Spike]

Hey, it made a joke (kind of)

Can you open the pod bay door?

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

And then, of course, pedant that it is, goes on to explain.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist the reference to the famous line from the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey". As an AI language model, I don't have the ability to physically interact with the world or control any physical devices. However, I'm here to help with any questions or tasks you may have to the best of my knowledge and abilities.)

The fact that it "couldn't resist" the line -- I still don't know what to make of this, but it is, to me, astonishing. Before giving the literal answer--it can't interact with doors--it "understood" the context, the irony, and played along.

(Edit. But I'm skeptical. Did it really come up with this on its own?)

 

[CelticRambler]

Here's an interesting take on the subject:

 

[Nate North]

That's a pretty well reasoned presentation. I posted a video about the Searle's chinese room earlier that explains that concept in greater depth.

When people say understand, I think they mean human intelligence. Machines have never "understood" anything, they've only gained a greater and greater ability to produce output that matches the intent of the input. But the level of sophistication employed has recently reached levels that we've never seen before. So can it think like us, understand the meanings of concepts and then execute language as a tool to express those concepts? Sort of. Ish. Here's the thing, there is absolutely no question that the machine is a machine. I fell like people forget that. A better question would be, do we think like it does. We know how the robot thinks, down to the last line of code, down to the last CUDA process, down to the last inference protocol. What we understand far less is how our own consciousness works. We have sort of a "magical" understanding of human intelligence. When trying to decide whether or not a computer "thinks like us", it would first be mandatory to understand our own thought processes fully. I can say, "all the computer is doing is collecting information in memory, weighing and prioritizing that information contextually, and then creating an output relevant to the calculated input" But what I can't tell you with any certainty is that humans actually do it any differently. We see greater functionality from human minds, and take that as evidence that a superior method is at play, but since Neuro function is quite multidimensional in nature, it stands to reason, given that so much is unknown here, that it may simply be a different shape of a similar type of intelligence. I started thinking about this when reading facebook comments and the like. So many people were using words that they didn't understand, simply because they knew using word x would produce result y. In that instance, I can't actually tell the difference between ChatGPT and a person, since the process seems identical. I would say that chatGPT is in some ways smarter than the average online writer in the sense that it doesn't show bias towards larger syllable counts. For example a human that uses "pejorative" as a substitute for "bad" is viewed as more knowledgeable, even though the meaning, and the intelligence behind the sentiment is identical. In short, ChatGPT comes out ahead of humans in areas where humans are prioritizing "trying to sound" intelligent, over actually being intelligent, which takes more work and garners less appreciation.