284
I Asked AI to Count My Carbs 27,000 Times. It Couldn’t Give Me the Same Answer Twice. (www.diabettech.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
😂 1
 

Hacker News

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -10 points 6 months ago (9 children)

Does OpenAI claim ChatGPT is fit for those purposes? No.

The concrete itself will happily mix into your pancakes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    I think the whole point of this discussion is that the various peddlers of AI in fact do make wild claims about their capability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    My observation is that largely it's the downstream AI consumers who repackage it irresponsibly. That said, I don't hang on the words of Sam Altman and it's certain they are pushing the idea that AI is more capable than it is, but mostly what I see is them saying they built this thing and it does neat stuff and it can probably do neat stuff for you, use your imagination.

    I believe a lot of the folks developing these tools would be horrified at the irresponsible ways vendors and end users are using it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

    Sam Altman is the face of OpenAI. He is responsible for misrepresenting the product he sells. If you're going to sling blame around, then you had better observe the words of Sam Altman.

    The thing that I think will be most impactful on that five to ten year timeframe is AI will actually discover new science.

    This sick man is taken seriously in mainstream media and politics, and it's no exaggeration to say he has blood on his hands.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    That's obviously bullshit but he's not telling users they can develop time travel or something. That's the distinction I would draw. He's selling investment. That's not where the end users that are misusing ChatGPT are at.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    It's the job of the company and especially the face and CEO of the company to sell the product. Compared to Sam Altman's promises, the use in this post is practically modest.

    If you think this isn't the case, maybe you can point to some ChatGPT marketing that would make it clear what correct, and especially incorrect usage would look like?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    They don't. They say we made this thing, see what you can do with it. They also put disclaimers on ChatGPT to say not to rely on it to be correct.

    One can infer from that, that any use for which you are relying on accuracy is incorrect use. Which is why it's critical to have any output filtered through a domain-capable human.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    They don't.

    "The thing that I think will be most impactful on that five to ten year timeframe is AI will actually discover new science." - Sam Altman

    This is what the face of OpenAI explicitly says their product is for. Do you have anything more concrete? Or am I just to buy into this infinite good faith and assume that anything dumb Trump Sammy says is just hyperbole?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    He's not selling anything specific and not to end users. You're talking about something completely different. The way Sam and investors and corporate customers talk about AI is pretty misleading, but it's not misleading users. No one looks at AI replacing CSRs and inventing new sciences, whatever the fuck that means, and jumps to it can unerringly diagnose a rash. And even if they did, the bot explicitly says not to trust it.

    If some dirt farmer asks it how to avoid losing his family farm in a drought and takes ChatGPT's advice to plant chocolate chips and loses the farm anyway, I suggest that's a user error.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    We might as well be discussing whether the tobacco industry has mislead customers because they have a little disclaimer on their cartons.

    Mainstream media publishes Sammy's statements uncritically. ChatGPT releases ads. It's extremely clear he is misleading the general public, his users. I don't know why you're in denial over this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent