"we"
there are sources of news which are not just lazily creating articles with gpt, (b) decide which content should appear first in our social media streams and news feeds, and
That is true, which is why the results of a Google search should not be treated as some kind of authority. For example:(c) decide which search results we get for Google or DuckDuckGo or whatever.
Really? Are you sure? How would you know? And how are you defining "slop" - if it is true, and well structured so that people can read, is it slop? What about videos that are full of emotional manipulation and predefined narratives, without verifiable facts, that are also likely produced with the help of AI? Is that slop?
Most are using some AI tools, at least grammar checkers.
Sure, but the CDC actually is an authority. Google search works best by directing us toward sources of authority. The CDC has lots of hard data on these questions, and you can find it here:
The reliability of GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) models, like ChatGPT, depends on various factors and contexts in which they are used. Here's a detailed look:
Accuracy and Factuality: While GPT models can generate responses that appear knowledgeable and coherent, their accuracy can be inconsistent. They are based on patterns in the data they were trained on, which means they might not always provide up-to-date, accurate, or contextually correct information. Studies have shown mixed results; for instance, one study assessing ChatGPT's medical responses found that among 44 AI-generated answers, the median accuracy score was 6 out of 6, indicating reasonable accuracy but with room for improvement. However, other evaluations have pointed out that these models can be less reliable in specific domains, with some researchers finding that newer models like GPT-4 might even be less accurate than their predecessors in certain scenarios.
Bias and Misinformation: There's a noted concern about bias and the potential spread of misinformation. GPT models might reproduce biases present in their training data or generate seemingly plausible but false information. For example, posts on X have highlighted instances where ChatGPT provides incorrect citations or fabricates information. This reflects broader critiques about the reliability of AI in providing trustworthy information, especially without human oversight.
Contextual Understanding: These models often struggle with understanding complex contexts or second-order effects in more intricate scenarios. They might perform well on straightforward queries but falter when tasks require nuanced understanding or when the subject matter veers into less-documented areas.
Applications and Use Cases: In some applications, like generating writing prompts, assisting with coding, or providing general information, GPT can be quite useful. However, for critical applications like medical advice, legal guidance, or where factual accuracy is paramount, their reliability is less assured. The integration of tools like chain-of-thought reasoning has aimed to improve this, but it's still not a complete solution.
Detection of AI-Generated Content: Tools like GPTZero have been developed to detect AI-generated text, with varying degrees of success. While these tools claim high accuracy, there are criticisms and reports of false positives, indicating that even the detection of AI reliability can be unreliable.
Continuous Improvement: The technology behind GPT models is under constant development, with improvements aimed at enhancing accuracy, reducing bias, and increasing reliability. However, each update can introduce new challenges or alter previous performance metrics, suggesting that while reliability increases over time, it's never absolute.
In conclusion, while GPT models offer impressive capabilities, their reliability cannot be taken for granted. They should be used with caution, particularly in scenarios requiring accuracy and accountability. Cross-verification with reliable sources is advised, and human oversight remains crucial for critical applications.
This is a good overview - thanks, Robert.
Here's one study I am familiar with:Studies have shown mixed results; for instance, one study assessing ChatGPT's medical responses found that among 44 AI-generated answers, the median accuracy score was 6 out of 6, indicating reasonable accuracy but with room for improvement. However, other evaluations have pointed out that these models can be less reliable in specific domains, with some researchers finding that newer models like GPT-4 might even be less accurate than their predecessors in certain scenarios.
Still, we should be cautious:Question What is the reliability of chatbot-generated responses to physician-generated medical queries?
Findings In this cross-sectional study of 33 physicians across 17 specialties who generated 284 medical questions, chatbot generated predominantly accurate information in response to these diverse medical queries as judged by these academic physician specialists. The median accuracy score was 5.5 (between almost completely and completely correct), and the median completeness score was 3.0 (complete and comprehensive).
Meaning Chatbot shows promise as a tool for providing accurate medical information in clinical settings.
While the chatbot-generated answers displayed high accuracy and completeness scores across various specialties, question types, and difficulty levels in this cross-sectional study, further development is needed to improve the reliability and robustness of these tools before clinical integration. Medical professionals and patients should recognize the limitations, should use extreme caution, and should actively verify AI-generated information with trusted sources.
Are wrenches reliable for fixing trucks?
I don’t trust it. Like Robert and Ohio Jones mention it can give a very generalized idea but it’s not a very accurate summary on the topics that involve health, the law, and certainly not the Bible. There’s an effort to promote the GPT version of the Bible and that’s going to be the least accurate version of all if it’s crowd-sourcing interpretations.
why should we be discussing ai generated slop?Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 6:29 pmAre wrenches reliable for fixing trucks?
A tool is only as good as the person using it. You might not trust your wrenches in my hands. I might not trust GPT in your hands. But I suspect you know what you are doing with a wrench, and I suspect I know what I am doing with GPT.
To find out, I would probably suggest getting in the truck and seeing how it runs. Or for GPT, I would suggest a serious discussion of the results that were created. For some reason, that discussion is not happening. Why not?
Because we discuss human generated slop all the time?JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 6:43 amwhy should we be discussing ai generated slop?Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 6:29 pmAre wrenches reliable for fixing trucks?
A tool is only as good as the person using it. You might not trust your wrenches in my hands. I might not trust GPT in your hands. But I suspect you know what you are doing with a wrench, and I suspect I know what I am doing with GPT.
To find out, I would probably suggest getting in the truck and seeing how it runs. Or for GPT, I would suggest a serious discussion of the results that were created. For some reason, that discussion is not happening. Why not?
It's not just stuff generated with AI that we don't discuss. For instance, people post about how mainstream media hates them and bring up Covington. I start a thread to point to the actual coverage from those sources at the time so we can discuss it. Crickets.
And to be blunt, I think we would all be surprised how much of the stuff we actually do discuss was generated using AI by people in the world who are not telling us how they do it. How much of it is promoted to us using AI. How much our partisan bubbles are promoted by AI and the mouseclick economy.5. Power and Influence6. Sexual Morality
- Mainstream Media: Glorifies fame, social influence, and institutional power as measures of success.
- Right-Wing Media: Prioritizes dominance in politics, military, and personal rights (e.g., gun ownership) as signs of strength.
- Orwell's Views: Criticized the corrupting nature of power and its tendency to exploit others, famously captured in the phrase, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Animal Farm, 1984)
- Biblical Christianity: Values humility, servanthood, and using power for God’s glory and others’ good. (Mark 10:43-45, Philippians 2:5-8)
- Mainstream Media: Normalizes casual sex, pornography, LGBTQ+ lifestyles, and alternative family structures, rejecting traditional sexual ethics as oppressive.
- Right-Wing Media: Publicly champions "family values" but often tolerates or glamorizes sexual immorality, such as infidelity, objectification, or scandals involving leaders.
- Orwell's Views: Critiqued the manipulation of sexuality in politics, as seen in "1984," where sexuality was both repressed and exploited to control people. He called for personal integrity in private life.
- Biblical Christianity: Upholds sexual purity, calling for marital fidelity and repentance for all, balanced with grace. (1 Corinthians 6:18-20, Hebrews 13:4, John 8:11)
