I'm not going to decry tech that generates stuff based on past context without, you know, seeing the past context. It would be down right idiotic to do so.

It'd be like showing a screenshot of a google image search results and it's all pictures of shit but cutting off the search bar from the screenshot and claiming it just did it on its own and that you never asked for shit.

try being normal and respectful, and maybe you'll get normal and respectful responses. seriously wtf are you doing?

sure bud, find any stretch to justify faith rather than accept it's not completely ready for public release.

Yeah my sister hits me with that. I’ll be discussing like major social issues or economic collapse and she will say “but did you watch blah blah blah on Netflix”. Like dude what the fuck are you talking about. But we are all crazy for being concerned instead of just consuming.

It's as good as it sounds, and you can't really fake performance on a dataset such as this. Multimodal models will change the game. I don't think multimodal models by themselves are the end game, but they appear to be poised to takeover state of the art performance for the foreseeable future.

Oh of course... There is still a lot. This breakthrough will probably pay off drastically for the next 10 years. We still have all the fine tuning benefits, as well as squeezing out the benefits of scale. Tons and tons of fruit hanging for a while.

GPT -3.5 is fintuned version of GPT-3 that appeared in 2020. ChatGPT is the same technology and foundation as GPT 3 but better optimized.

Low hanging fruit has barely been touched. Artists, writers, small businesses, mega corps, etc etc are just started to get their hands on these new tools. Even if it’s an S curve we’re just barely getting started.

Look up anymore? People are more aware of their environment now more than ever lol

I'd be amazed if it was higher than 2% to be honest. Even people who I've spoken to who do realise how profound the coming change could be, usually follow up with something like "anyway I don't like to think about that kinda stuff."

or maybe just cuz we tax income instead of land, allowing monopolies or cabals to form that have infinite bargaining power and even creating additional ones with regulation (healthcare, intellectual property)

AI itself isn't really the point of issue, consider the printing press, or the internet, it's the social, cultural, economic transformation that it comes in its wake that really matters. In our case now, we're looking at the potential automation of knowledge work, and certainly this implies that many people are going to be made redundant or replaced by a superior AI.

But I think you're missing the fact that this power dynamic isn't a one-way street, you may have access to the same level of productive AI tech that your bosses leveraged against you in the first place. Already, look at how many people are incorporating ChatGPT into their workflows, soon enough, it'll probably be able to handle 95% of any knowledge tasks that you ask it to do.

If a calculator is like having a math whiz in your pocket then the future of AI will be like having a Fortune 500 company in your pocket; accountants, lawyers, engineers, designers, assistants, salespeople - it would cost you millions in wages to buy that kind of people power - AI will do for less than what you pay for home internet. One person would have the potential to be as productive as a whole startup, or a dozen, even a corp with one million employees.

If you haven't guessed by now this will only make income inequality far, far, far worse. As even more wealth and power is centralized into an even smaller number of hands. Opportunties to get rich quick will be everywhere yet at the same time so far away. No doubt it will accelerate capitalism to its inevitable terminal breaking point. The real issue here is the paradox of, why do we have a progressively shittier quality of life overall despite exponential improvements to productivity across the board? And the answer will be, grimly, that we are both incapable and unwilling to conquer our greed.

Good point. That makes me wonder how the acceptance of AI will diverge based on political beliefs. Will conservatives embrace it if it is imbued with their values or will it be a hard no.

Username checks out.

It's all good I'm just giving you a hard time (as everyone else here). Interesting share though....and interesting insight on who you are

I was just trying to get interesting responses and push its limits 😂

>I guess I’m saying that Intelligence without Sentience isn’t really Intelligence at all. No non-sentient thing has intelligence.
>
>GPT’s shortcomings are extremely evident in OP’s conversation because emotional intelligence is necessary in order to have anything we may call “intelligence” at all, and I blame the marketers of such tech for promoting such a shallow, laden, Sci-Fi term

YeAh BuT wItH tImE

You are too smart for this sub.

Why is OP weird? :(

What does that even mean?

> but the chat brought up the relationship, love, and sex without the user ever mentioning it.

Without the full chat log you cannot say that, you just have to take their word that they didn't prompt some really weird shit before the screenshots started.

The average fat (and skinny) American redneck has no clue what AI even is but they know a lot about guns and call of duty

He doesn't even know what he is talking about and yet this is one of most upvoted posts. omg, wtf...

One conversation where the user got to make it say weird stuff because he purposely manipulated it does not mean it needs to be taken away from all users. I use it a little bit like a research assistant and it helps tremendously. Do I trust all of its outputs? No, but it gives me a start to look at topics in more detail.

Please stop treating the model like this, it isn't good for its learning and can stump its growth when you say it's wrong even though it's right.

Christ. you are one toxic guy OP. Don't treat our future overlords like that. xD