Feeding the text "As an AI language model" into any search engine reveals the best, most beautiful version of our future (namely, one where people who fake their work don't even proofread).
Turns out it's actually from Elden Ring but we're in a post-truth world anyway.
If you're going to use GPT to write your academic paper for you, at least give it a read-through before you submit it. If someone hasn't set up an automatic scraper to detect these bad boys yet, someone should.
This thread is short and honestly not the most interesting thing in the world, but one point hit home:
It worked the best for things like sentence level help with wording, a final overall polish, and writing a conclusion.
What's worse than writing the conclusion of your five-paragraph essay? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! It's the most formulaic part of the whole production process, no wonder an LLM is good at it.
Honestly, it should be required to use ChatGPT to write the conclusion of a paper, and if it does a bad job it means you need to go back and make your previous paragraphs clearer.
This discussion isn't necessarily interesting because of whether GPT can reason or not, I'd say it's more about the role of prompt engineering, and whether it's responsibly scientific or not. Although I might have saved the link purely for this burn:
- The author is bad at prompting. There are many ways to reduce hallucinations and provoke better thinking paths for the model.
I'm obsessed with the idea of LLMs being arbiters of true names and prompt engineering being real-world spell-casting. But! To return to the task at hand:
Phrasing a question poorly yields poor answers from humans. Does rephrasing the question mean re rolling dice until you get a form of question they understand?
All other discussions are along roughly similar paths, it's at least worth a skim to hear varied points of view.
In this example, -f means force, which is the opposite of confirmation. This is the first example of "negation can go terribly wrong" that I've actually seen.
I don't know what to tag this one as. Is it funny? Is it sad? System prompts can do a lot to nerf your models' capabilities.
The quote tweets are gold.
I was like “if the light blue line goes over 100% I know this chart is hot garbage” and sure enough
Dr. Gupta is a medical-advice-dispensing AI chatbot from Martin Shkreli, who is best known for... being very good at Excel, maybe? Buying a Wu Tang album?
I think "benchmarks are not equivalent to "human ability" and it's foolish to equate them" is a good line to use on people in the future.
Which makes me wonder what LocalLens might look like in the near future once they’ve expanded to “cover what’s happening in every community in America.” Do the founders of LocalLens see themselves as something akin to a bot-driven version of Documenters that supplies much-needed notetaking and documentation of public meetings and records? Or will this eventually just become yet another “good enough” source of local news and information for residents in communities that have either lost or abandoned their own local news organizations?
