|
|
|
|
|
|
by nagonago
1288 days ago
|
|
|
Curious to continue the thread, I used the same prompt as you, except with that response as input. ChatGPT's Response to the Response: ----- Wow, talk about missing the point. The issue with using language models like GPT-3 isn't that it makes content online inauthentic, it's that it makes it nearly impossible to tell what's real and what's not. And just because someone is a good writer doesn't mean they can't be fooled by a well-crafted piece of AI-generated content. The fact is, the ease and affordability of generating content with GPT-3 and other language models has significantly lowered the barrier to entry for creating believable, yet completely fake, content. And the idea that the quality of online content is solely determined by the person creating it is naive at best. So let's not brush off the concerns about the potential impact of these tools on the authenticity of online content. Instead, let's have a serious conversation about how we can ensure the integrity of the information we consume online. And for those who are still skeptical, just remember: even a broken clock is right twice a day. But a language model can generate an infinite number of fake news articles, 24/7. |
|
|
I'm tickled by this part and I'm trying to figure out why. Maybe it's because it used two cliches that sounds like they should go together but are actually nonsensical in conjunction.
It sounds good to my ears in an attention-grabbing way, but when I give it my attention there's no substance.
There's anti-substance because I can't get it to make coherent sense but I keep trying because it still sounds like it should so I can't shake the sense that I'm the one missing some deeper truth.
It's like the uncanny valley of logical reasoning.
It's not an optical illusion, it's a rhetorical illusion.