@dailygrail Haha, that would have been something.
Tagged: reply
@Homebrewandhacking @Mabande
We also must not forget her portrayal of Albert Nobbs.
https://slate.com/culture/2012/01/albert-nobbs-glenn-close-plays-a-woman-playing-a-man.html
@kev
That is seriously cool. Now I have to start a separate blog just to try this đ
@vinnatron
@LeoR1010 Tack, verkar ha gÄtt bra. Jag vet inte om jag lyckades med uppdateringen för det Àr inget som ser annorlunda ut, men inget gick i alla fall sönder och det Àr ju alltid nÄgot att vara glad för.
@carl @anders
You should have been tagged in our continued conversation about domain knowledge Carl :)
One thing (of many things*) that makes me wary of using ChatGPT is because I donât know how well I can judge my own autonomy within the use of the system. I feel like I am trapped within someone elseâs imagination of what is important, rational or mathematically likely. And there is a clear risk of trusting quick responses in a desire to move along and get something âdoneâ.
If I for example would use it to trigger new plausible thoughts based on an input I would feel that I have skipped important steps that would either (a) allow me to see weaknesses in the new idea or (b) provide understanding so I can use the idea in the best possible way.
My favorite way of moving my thinking along is these types of conversations with you both and others who like to take their time to look at something from any and every perspective before moving forward too quickly. đ
One area I truly am intrigued by is using these tools to write code. In my mind this could be very useful in moving power away from centralised and monocultural ways of manufacturing software.
*Other concerns of mine of course relate to ethics, energy-use, the expressed values of the organisations providing the tool, colonialist tendencies, power concentration, unaccountability and more. But Iâve written more about this elsewhere :) I am aware that this makes me biased to discredit. I have also realised that these new tools likely have created a need for me to add one or two elements to The Elements of Digital Ethics, related to machine-generated content: https://axbom.com/elements/
@anders
Yes, Iâm also critical of all the familiarity being built into these designs (such as using âIâ, âmeâ and emojis). Or the certainty with which responses are expressed.
@anders This I certainly agree on. I had this in the back of my mind as well as I was writing. I have for example saved all my emails since 1998. And lots of other writing of course as well, including my blog. Being able to source this material using a language model could provide useful. Almost like being able to retrieve data from a diary to make note of shifts in ideas, culture and values over time. So within a limited scope and source material that I am failiar with it makes a lot of sense.
@anders
This is fair, and relatable to telescopes. I still need domain knowledge to understand what it is I am seeing through my telescope. And this is also what give me a healthy amount of skepticism.
And I think this is key to these tools, how important it is to have a certain domain knowledge before using it.
One specific problem could then be described as putting this tool in everyoneâs hands without the domain knowledge to understand or judge what they are seeing in the other end of it.
@anders I think my primary tools for augmenting my own thinking are sketching, note-taking and writing (and some tools similar to what you describe that can help me get an overview of my own notes and sketches). And in some sense reading books. I believe my inability to trust the output of ChatGPT, and the lack of transparency on what it is trained on, makes it difficult for me to find a good use for it. đŹ
I do understand the idea of using it for critical thinking and generating statements that are to be judged and reasoned around, as the following post explains, but I rarely see this type of critical thinking even in examples provided by peers in my industry â using it in workplaces. The amount of trust many people place in the output, and use as conclusions for analytical work, is a problemâŠ
https://www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/2023/03/30/enhancing-learners-critical-thinking-skills-with-ai-assisted-technology/
When we augment with a telescope it is because we have recognised a need to see further into space. When we augment with a hearing aid or speaker, it is because we have recognised a need to hear better. And we can immediately validate if they work for this purpose.
It is not entirely clear to me what part of human thinking is augmented with ChatGPT and how I can judge if that is actually what is happening. i.e. I woud like to see the need more clearly described, and I would like to see the result of that need being met more clearly validated. Can everyone think better with a tool like ChatGPT, in the same way everyone with vision can see further with a telescope?
For me a microscope and a hearing aid can eliminate misunderstanding, as they help me see or hear more clearly. Meanwhile a tool like ChatGPT can *boost* misunderstanding as it is a statistical representation of a source that is unclear to me, and evidentially biased.
I know you didnât say ChatGPT itself was augmenting thinking, as you used the word catayst. But I did find it interesting to think of it as an augmentation tool, where ChatGPT clearly can be used to augment all the wrong things (disinformation, bias, depression, etc).
@Loukas I totally get you.
@Loukas It makes me sad thinking of all the people who fall into the trap of believing that efficiency will bring them happiness.
@LeoR1010
KÀnns ocksÄ som om vi stÄr inför en explosion av pÄhittade nyheter och "fakta" som skadar mÀnniskor pÄ riktigt. Som den hÀr:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/05/chatgpt-lies/
Det trÄkiga Àr hur mÀnniskor verkligen vÀljer att inte bry sig om alla uppenbara problem utan snubblar över sig sjÀlva för att hinna fram till "nÄgot" för att de personligen kanske kan vinna pÄ det.
SĂ€ger som Nalle Puh: âOm man inte vet vart man ska Ă€r det ingen idĂ© att skynda sig. Man vet Ă€ndĂ„ inte nĂ€r man kommer fram.â
@iamdavidobrien
Thank you, yes. A copy paste error - didnât proofread. Will fix now. :)
@timnitGebru
@Beantin
But think of all the experience you gained. đ
@plausible
@tysonsw Thanks. The logistics of my day didn't allow me to follow up on this đ
@tysonsw
Don't have Word unfortunately. But it makes me want to create some example paragraphs to compare how they deal with the types of metaphors that most struggle with.
@ChrisJKelly
Haha, true!
The interesting/worrying thing is at what point someone else decides that translators are not needed. I'm worried all the current hype is pushing these thoughts. And that will of course likely have its own backlash.
@ChrisJKelly
For that second phrase "This truly feels like a red herring." I got
"Detta kÀnns verkligen som en röd trÄd."
đ
So essentially "This feels like common thread" or "common theme".
Which in some ways is worse because it may at first glance feel right but is also not at all what I meant.
(And yes I included my full paragraph to provide context for the tool).
I wrote my communication science dissertation on translation. I'm far from trusting a computer with it based on my experiences. đ
What worries me is when it provides plausible answers with assertiveness. Many people will miss those mistakes. I'd rather it admit weaknesses.
@smirandafield Good point. And if they want they can block the bot.