|
Top-level
 @jonny I had an interaction a few weeks back where somebody had asked in a public channel how to do something with ffmpeg. Another person gave a solution with a list of flags that was garbage, and only admitted that they'd "just fed that to the ol' GPT" after being told it didn't work. When I called them out on it maybe not being a good idea to dispense LLM synthesised text as advice, they seemed surprised that a) the output wasn't helpful, and b) that what they'd done was objectionable. 12 comments
 @Cheeseness like, they would never imagine themselves as actually logging in and writing anything down on any of those other websites, so their social reality is totally meaningless. they just are always there and have always been there. having to type a question in chatGPT is just about as different as typing in a question form for ask jeeves is from typing in an abbreviated keyword imperative form for google @jonny 100% agree. It also makes me a little uncomfortable with the role of Wikipedia or StackExchange within culture in terms of critical thinking vs just taking whatever at face value without any thought or consideration. @Cheeseness for the public record in case of any federation weirdness i typed this at the exact same time, mind twinning https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/111328144718469983 @Cheeseness oh wait i forgot i mentioned stackexchange and wikipedia in the first post and thought we had both come up with those as examples of informational institutions we were uncomfortable with for this exact reason, so not as one in a million as i was thinking but still yes mind twins @Cheeseness @jonny ChatGPT is a bit like StackOverflow in that it will turn up a lot of bullshit and half-truths and it's up to the user to sift through that and find the thing that's potentially useful: you usually can't just copy-past @Selena @jonny To be clear about where I'm coming from, I'd be wary of working with anybody who doesn't even think of glancing over cited sources for further reading when processing the content of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia exists to summarise knowledge, and observing others assume that there isn't more to think about/learn is what makes me uncomfortable. It's not quite "question everything" so much as "be interested/engaged with the stuff one is discovering."  ChatGPT is definitely not like StackOverflow. There are no consequences for wrong answers. Nobody downvotes bad answers. Nobody gets points for helpful answers.  @Cheeseness @jonny |
Gregory's Server
@Cheeseness I think there's a genuine mental model disconnect where a (surprisingly to me) reasonably large number of people that aren't in any sort of "mega pro-AI" ideological camp, but just regular tool using ppl don't see it as being any different from any other information source like stackexchange or wikipedia.