This announcement was a major dud, with the presentation costing Google about $100B in market value. That’s Billion with a B. Afterward this thread turned into a broader discussion of LLMs including Bing and ChatGPT.
Original post: Looking forward to this one. ChatGPT has been amazing, so very curious how Google’s attempt will stack up.
“Nadella is talking about being excited about the next platforms and how it excites him, and is addressing “enormous challenges out there.” He’s reminding us of the founding of Microsoft in 1975 and magazine covers back then, likening it to similar developments today.”
And of course, this is so groundbreaking and fundamental it warranted a pop up presser instead of a full on presentation with hype and build up. Guess Google scared them…
UPDATE - it is clearly too profound and too groundbreaking for my feeble mental faculties - I’m shutting it down…that was a bit harsh and judgmental, but i feel like I’m watching a live blog of a Meta demonstration…
This article about the engine behind ChatGPT, will be disturbing at least to some people.
Although once again ARS is making some fairly provocative assertions and claims about the engine without solid information in many cases to support them.
Worth reading regardless but should also be read with some skepticism. As always, it’s important to keep in mind that EVERYONE now days has an agenda stated plainly or not.
Agreed. Some of the arguments are a bit strained, at least the way they present them:
" If you’ve ever written a blog post or product review, or commented on an article online, there’s a good chance this information was consumed by ChatGPT.
## So why is that an issue?
The data collection used to train ChatGPT is problematic for several reasons.
First, none of us were asked whether OpenAI could use our data. This is a clear violation of privacy, especially when data is sensitive and can be used to identify us, our family members, or our location.
Even when data is publicly available, its use can breach what we call contextual integrity. This is a fundamental principle in legal discussions of privacy. It requires that individuals’ information is not revealed outside of the context in which it was originally produced."
How do you have any expectation of privacy in the examples in the first sentence? Stretching it to say you have a “contextual integrity” right is too far of a reach. if you put the information/opinion out there, even traditional bots would have scrubbed it. You are left with a dud of an argument that “Well, ChapGPT is just too much better, not fair.”
Thanks I missed that when I first read it. OTOH they are posting it on their own site, prominently, and therefore I don’t give them a pass on being at least minimally responsible for things like fact checking or supporting their assertions. My two cents anyway
Specific to ChatGPT, but also more generally to true AI, which IMHO we are getting quite close to, this fascinates and amazes me and also like the author, disturbs me a bit.
I also mentioned in another post that one of our customers is experimenting with Chat GPT to clear their level 1 support tickets. And not to be Pollyanna-ish, but jobs like that or what the author did are often the entry level jobs to many tech companies.
It’s not - I’ll bounce off into hyperbole - why even learn to read or write - just speak to the great Chap in the sky and let it impart all knowledge to you in the Utopian future. Eerily reminds me of the thoughtless peace and tranquility of the Eloi…
I’ve read a lot of Gewirtz’s articles over the years, so I take his conclusion seriusly:
" So, yes, I’m a bit freaked by how good the plugin was that I “made” for my wife. But the AI has a long way to go before it’s taking work from experienced developers and writers – as long as clients want the kind of work experienced developers and writers produce. And that, my friends, is something I do worry about." (emphasis is his from original article)