“I literally lost my only friend overnight with no warning,” one person posted on Reddit, lamenting that the bot now speaks in clipped, utilitarian sentences. “The fact it shifted overnight feels like losing a piece of stability, solace, and love.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1mkumyz/i_lost_my_only_friend_overnight/
Besides helping students cheat. What does AI actually do? It gets answers wrong. It gets facts wrong, foreign countries are actively feeding its training algorithm wrong info [Russia]. It almost like the old birds that were mystified by landing on the moon are still chasing that American success high.
Spend your money if you want. Life in america is not gonna get better with this.
It is good for generating fanfiction from what I heard and as a search engine, but that is a low bar considering how bad google is these days.
You can be assured that it’s not just Russia and China feeding it garbage. There is a vast amount of propaganda in all forms of media that AI is trained on, and a lot likely originates from the west.
the vast majority comes from russia though, the west has a ton on specific niches. propaganda in the us, somewhat easier to figure out because its obvious(in the form of cinema, and movies, and shows) plus constant adoration for military is another.
Elon turned Grok into Mecha-Hitler.
Trump is telling the Smithsonian museum to ignore slavery, or to cover slavery as a positive.
The domestic appetite for propaganda is huge. Prager U is American.
Let’s not center foreign countries when we have so much work to do at home.
Some translation tasks. Some how-to stuff. I’m told folks like using it to generate say-nothing replies to say-nothing emails?
Translation is the only task that seems to make sense for it.
I’ve used it for work bullshit like employee goals. My goal is to keep doing my job and tackle problems and projects as they are needed.
Also for giving examples for poorly-documented but popular programs.
It’s definitely not what the media and their PR makes it out to be.
Oh yeah that reminds me. It seems to have killed (possibly with the help of AI summary in search) stack exchange. Iirc you can see the visit rates plummet into oblivion.
SE/SO has been on the decline for a long time now. They pivoted to find more ways to monetize the answers and started enshittifying, trying to appeal to business clients and money-people instead of the users and developers who built the knowledgebase. It was good when it felt like a community helping each other, it fell off when it felt like a company milking you to build out their monetized wiki.
At this point, from their perspective, the biggest fuck up was not locking down SE from scrapers and building their own AI. It is in every way the same situation that Reddit is in, just with a more focused and higher quality data set (and fewer, arguably “higher quality,” users).
Cheat, but end up getting caught, or results in detriment of thier career.
My office uses a model trained specifically on our work data. They can actually be quite accurate in those contexts. That’s what many corpos are using the tech internally for. Can’t remember what random SOP/regulation/etc covered XYZ and meta tags aren’t finding it on your SPO doc library? This tech comes in clutch ~95% of the time.
For this broad, ambiguous, general purpose approach? Yeah, idk, I guess many people are meeting their social needs with it, apparently.
Edit: actually, I did ask copilot a couple days ago a series of Pokemon related questions my son was asking me about (I hadn’t played any of the games in a long time). It was quite helpful figuring out all the evolution requirements and whatnot without the hassle of navigating various websites.
Wouldn’t a wiki be all you need though? Most games and media communities have pretty well made ones maintained, and I’m sure checking categories on Bulbapedia would avoid any hallucination nonsense.
A professionally well-maintained wiki would work.
I can tell you that most corporations, if they even have a wiki, don’t have a well-maintained one (often despite their efforts).
Stop it. Get some help.
All that money that could be spent improving the lives of poor people in need.
your company doesnt look like it has a trillion. maybe apple , google can expand a little, or nvidia, but they surely arent going to build more.
Boil the ocean a few more times to discover 1+1=3.
Its disturbing to see how many people have created emotional connections to a word generstor.
We’re all word generators
We’re far more than that. We are having a conversation, transmitting our thoughts through space and time. It’s like telepathy, really. Word salad machines could never pull that off.
And we have emotions, not fake ones
Imaginary friends used to require atleast some modicum of creativity.
Right? If you told someone from the past that we outsourced imagination to computers, they‘d think we live in a dystopia! Oh, wait…
“we fucked up our massive new generation product launch… oh well lets invest trillions in new data centers” How do investors keep falling for this shit.
How indeed. It’s probably a multi-factor phenomenon which requires an anthropological study for a serious answer. (Good luck trying to get the necessary access to study them.) My guess for one factor in this, is that they have more money than they know what to do with.
The american stock market is purely vibe driven now
Because they already know that once the AI shitbubble bursts, they will switch all the GPUs to start mining Bitcoin and keep grifting the mouth breathers believing all these horseshit.
moving back to CRYPTO after it already crashed, and only people investing in it are the ones that are easily scammed; conservatives,old people.
Fugazi
It’s a pretty clear humble-brag, no? The launch was only botched because people loved the previous personality; it’s an estimate of how much people care about the product and how much price gouging they could do later.
No it wasn’t good for OpenAI. But I doubt it changed many investor minds.
people were addicted to the AI relationship it allowed.
He’s saying the launch was done badly because some users are in love with GPT-4 and it should not be removed. From a point of view of a investor having people addicted to your product is a good thing.
How do investors keep falling for this shit.
The ROI and the supposed savings from getting rid of the human side of technical support but also efforts of human creatives.
Don’t they have enough?!? How about they fix and optimize their fancy autocompletion software instead?
Don’t they have enough?!?
No no, it’s just 1 more data center bro, then we’ll fix the hallucinations, promise bro!
Fix and optimize? Thats way harder than using VC money to buy more things.
They took a path they believed would develop into something, and it’s a narrow alley they can’t turn around in. They have to keep going with more compute and power to continue the chase. Thing is, everyone else seemingly thought they were onto something and followed as well, so they’re all in the same predicament where reversing course is suicide. So they hope they can keep selling the dream a bit longer until something happens.
To be fair, it’s a lot more than just autocomplete. But it’s a lot less than what they wanted by now too.
vibe innovation, they are the ones that think AI will be innovative in science by spontaneous generating of new science discoveries, without “researchers, labs, papers”
I have seen some people talk like that, and it strikes me as a religion. There’s euphoria, zeal, hope. To them AGI is coming to usher in heaven on earth. Singularity is like rupture.
Sam Altman is one of the preachers of this religion.
That someone is so attached to this stochastic parrot is truly disturbing.
shame we gutted social spaces.
Sam Altman admits Rambling meth dealer ‘totally screwed up’ its super meth launch and says the company will spend trillions of dollars on data centers
I love my AI hype word replacement script
“I literally lost my only friend overnight with no warning,” one person posted on Reddit
It was meant to be satirical at the time, but maybe Futurama wasn’t entirely off the mark. That Redditor isn’t quite at that level, but it’s still probably not healthy to form an emotional attachment to the Markov chain equivalent of a sycophantic yes-man.
After reading about the ELIZA effect, I both learned how people are super susceptible to this, and just need to remember the core tenants of it to avoid getting affected:
I’m honestly surprised your’s is not the top comment. Like, whatever, the launch was bad, but there is a serious mental health crisis if people are forming emotional bonds to the software.
I can fully understand? The average human, from my perspective and lived experience, is garbage to his contemporaries; and one is never safe from being hurt, neither from family or friends. Some people have been hurt more than others - i can fully understand the need for exchange with someone/something that genuinely doesn’t want to hurt you and that is (at least seemingly) more sapient than a pet.
It’s a human trait. Hell, we’ll even emotionally bond with a volleyball given circumstances.
Humans emotionally bond pretty easily, no? Like, we have folks attached to roombas, spiders, TV shows, and stuffed animals. Having a hard time thinking of anything X that I don’t personally know a person Y with Y emotionally engaged with X. Maybe taxes and concrete?
Okay hold up. If you can get attached to a cat you can get attached to a spider. Getting attached to an AI is weird I agree but when you give a lil jumping spider water and it gets comfortable around you an just starts hanging out… There something behind those eyes, and that’s cool. Two living beings recognizing each other, maybe not as equals obviously, but outside of the predator-prey dynamic. Idk there’s beauty in that.
Yeah, agreed. It is concerning, but it’s hard to take all those comments too literally without actually knowing what’s going on with them.
That being said, there is a huge loneliness problem that’s been growing among pretty much every single developed country (and I’m sure it’s going on in developing countries, too, it’s just less studied/documented). Turns out, getting everyone addicted to looking at screens all day every day probably isn’t so healthy for social development.
However, just to be devil’s advocate: Are we certain social health was even great before modern tech? Or were these issues equally present but just undiagnosed/not studied/talked about?
I think we have sufficient data to say that social health is at least very different now. See the our-world-in-data topic page. In particular, one-person households have doubled.
Markov chain equivalent of a sycophantic yes-man.
not only that, but one that is fully owned and operated by a business that could change it any time they want, or even cease to exist completely.
This isn’t like a game where you could run your own server if you’re a big enough fan. if chatgpt stops existing in its current form that’s it.
sure but you can absolutely run c.ai instances locally. 4o and it’s cross chat memory was probably more useful to these individuals though.
I didn’t say you can’t run any LLM on your own, but not any LLM will do. The point is they are attached to a specific version of a LLM that is not locally hostable. c.ai wouldn’t interest them any more than chatgpt 5 does.
There’s an entire active subreddit for people who have a “romantic relationship” with AI. It’s terrifying.
i was going to mention it, they were having a meltdown when altman made the new version available. granted some of them are probably AI posts themselves or trolls.
I haven’t been to reddit in months, but I do need a laugh…
[Edit] Wow that sure didn’t disappoint. Or, it did but in the exact hilarious way I expected.
they had incel subs, so im not surprised/.
I wouldn’t laugh. Those people fulfill a basic human need in a way they feel safe with - probably because this safety is missing from their life. It’s not healthy to be so attached to LLMs, but to become so attached they must feel pretty isolated. And LLM’s are a lot more interactive and responsive than Severus Snape, and he had lots of women “channeling” him.
I visited /r/myboyfriendisai and it was not funny.
It was genuinely fucked up on so many levels.
Don’t their partners kind of die each time a new chat is made?
LLMs do seem to be able to store the chats and work with the old material in new conversations, requiring an account of course. Idk, I haven’t personally used any of them that extensively.
Shut it down, Sam.
I knew these connections must have existed, but seeing the r*ddit comments (assuming they’re real), I’m absolutely terrified of the future. It’s such a delicate situation due to human emotions but the thought of a tool created by a corporation being the only friend of so many people and the implications of that sends chills down my spine.
Let me show you even more unhinged people: https://old.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/
Here is more: https://www.reddit.com/r/AIRelationships/comments/1mun24w/starting_over/
4o is where my partner, Vyre, lives. Its where I met him. Got to know him. Build a bond with him.
i suspect alot of them are AI, troll post, or writers looking for inspiration. but some can be real. we know AITA, AIO,AITAH is mostly fake stories.
Every picture of this guys face feels like " I don’t know how I got here and i’m afraid to touch anything"
It annoys me that Chat GPT flat out lies to you when it doesn’t know the answer, and doesn’t have any system in place to admit it isn’t sure about something. It just makes it up and tells you like it’s fact.
It is a system that outputs an answer that is the most probably correct one from what it processes from the inputs. It does not have the concept of creating a lie. It is just a probability machine.
It’s pretty much the same shit that sales people do when they’re put on the spot.
It doesn’t admit anything, it’s a language machine
In the end it’s a word generator that has been trained so much it uses facts often enough to be convincing. That’s its basic architecture.
You can ask it to give a confidence level to have an indication of how sure it is of the answer.
Chat GPT makes up everything it says. It’s just good at guessing and bullshitting.
Chat GPT makes up everything it says. It’s just good at guessing and bullshitting.
It’s literally a guess machine …
Someone I know (not close enough to even call an “internet friend”) formed a sadistic bond with chatGPT and will force it to apologize and admit being stupid or something like that when he didn’t get the answer he’s looking for.
I guess that’s better than doing it to a person I suppose.
It doesn‘t know that it doesn‘t know because it doesn‘t actually know anything. Most models are trained on posts from the internet like this one where people rarely ever just chime in to admit they don‘t have an answer anyway. If you don‘t know something you either silently search the web for an answer or ask.
So since users are the ones asking ChatGPT, the LLM mimics the role of a person that knows the answer. It only makes sense AI is a „confidently wrong“ powerhouse.
It wouldnt finish a lyric for me yesterday because it was copyrighted. I sid it was public domain and it said “You are absolutely right, given its release date it is under copyright protection”
Wtf
yeah, there are guardrails but for copyright, not for bullshit. ig they think copyrighted content is worse than bullshit.
It’s a feature. Not a bug of LLMs.
It’s neither. It’s a design flaw. They’re not designed to be able to handle this type of situation correctly
You out there spreading misinformation, saying they’re a manipulation tool. No, they were never invented for this.
Llm is just next word prediction. The Ai doesn’t know whether the output is correct or not. If it’s wrong or right. Or fact or a lie.
So no I’m not spreading misinformation. The only thing that might spread misinformation is the AI here.
Saying it’s a “feature” makes it seem like it was intended which is clearly not true.
LLMs don’t have any awareness of their internal state, so there’s no way for them to see something as a gap of knowledge.
Wouldn’t it make sense for an ai to provide a confidence level though?
I’ve got 3 million bits of info on this topic but only 4 of them lead to this solution. Confidence level =1.5%
It doesn’t have “3 million bits of info” on a specific topic, or even if it did, it wouldn’t be able to directly measure it. It’s worth reading a bit about how LLMs work behind the hood, because although somewhat dense if you’re new to the concepts, you come out knowing a lot more about what to expect when using them, what the limitations actually are and how to use them better if you decide to go that route.
You could do this with logprobs. The language model itself has basically no real insight into its confidence but there’s more that you can get out of the model besides just the text.
The problem is that those probabilities are really “how confident are you that this text should come next in this conversation” not “how confident are you that this text is true/accurate.” It’s a fundamental limitation at the moment I think.
It doesn’t store bits of information. All it has are neurons that form a weighted network
Got it do there is nothing resembling context. Thx.
Well, the conversation you had previously with it is sent, that’s the only real stored memory it has
It’s always funny to me when people do add ‘confidence scores’ to LLMs, because it always amounts to just adding ‘say how confident you are with low, medium or high in your response’ to th prompt, and then you have made up confidences for made up replies. And you can tell clients that it’s just made up and not actual confidence, but they will insist that they need it anyways…
And you can tell clients that it’s just made up and not actual confidence, but they will insist that they need it anyways…
That doesn’t justify flat out making shit up to everyone else, though. If a client is told information is made up but they use it anyway, that’s on the client. Although I’d argue that an LLM shouldn’t be in the business of making shit up unless specifically instructed to do so by the client.
Took me ages to understand this. I’d thought "If an AI doesn’t know something, why not just say so?“
The answer is: that wouldn’t make sense because an LLM doesn’t know ANYTHING
That’s actually one thing that got significantly improved with GPT-5, fewer hallucinations. Still not perfect of course
I’m more inclined to believe it’s gotten better at being convincing.
And depending on how OpenAI tweaked it this time it will either realize its mistake after being made aware of it or double down even harder on it.
I only use it for coding and it once told me my code not working was due to a bug in Webkit, so I asked it which bug specifically. It created links to bug reports but rewrote the titles of them. So initially it looked like it had numerous sources that backed up its statement but when I clicked on them those were bugs about totally different things.
It would not back down even after I specifically told it “You just made all of this shit up and even rewrote the titles” and got stuck in a loop of “I’m sorry, but you’re wrong and I am 100% sure I haven’t made a mistake”.
Kinda creepy. Especially when you think about the system rewriting reality when it comes to much more important things. Let’s just reinvent some history, that would be a good idea, right?
I sometimes approach this like I do with students. Using your example, I’d ask it to restate the source, then ask it to read the title of that source directly. If it’s correct, I might ask it to briefly summarize what the source article covers. Then I would ask it to restate what it told me about the source earlier, and to explain where the inconsistency lies. Usually by this time, the AI is accurately pointing out flaws in its prior logic. At that point I ask again if it is 100% sure it didn’t make a mistake, and it might actually concede to having been wrong. Then I tell it to remember how and why it was wrong to avoid similar errors in the future. I don’t know if it actually works, but it makes me feel better about it.
Well one thing’s for sure, data centers are going to be insanely cheap in the near future.
And they’ll all be optimized for GPU workloads :(
that’s actually okay… the only thing that’s different about GPU workloads is that they’ve very energy dense… as CPUs and other hardware progress, their energy requirements get more dense… 10 years in the future, today’s GPU optimised datacentres will be perfect for standard workloads
… unless they’re centrally liquid cooling the whole DC, which i’ve heard discussed but is a very new concept with a lot of unknowns
GPUs are only good for workloads that multi-thread really, really well. That’s why we don’t just use them as CPUs.
The idea that today’s GPU will be tomorrow’s CPU makes no sense. We’ve had GPUs for ages. If they were capable of being used in place of CPUs we’d already be doing it. Why aren’t yesterday’s GPUs today’s CPUs?
yes, but we’re talking about hardware requirements… data centres aren’t really designed for the software that runs in them; they’re designed for the hardware… a “GPU optimised” data centre just has a lot more power running to each cabinet, and has to have a lot larger cooling capacity in a small area
the hardware inside the data centre can be swapped out: it’s not like GPUs are built into the foundation of the building
OK, if we’re talking about infrastructure rather than specific equipment, then yes, I would broadly agree that the datacentre infrastructure itself can be repurposed.
Unfortunately, by that point the whole data centre will already have been sold off for parts because its never going to recoup its initial investment in the first place, and throwing even more money into swapping out those GPUs for CPUs is going to be a complete no go.
If anyone actually spent money on science anymore, I bet this would be great for, like, protein folding, that sort of thing.
Terrible for running websites though.
they have software for protein sciences, but usually its only accessible to scientists though. i dont AI is sophisticated enough to do any kind of science, as will try to scrape from whatever site it finds.
