[bamboozled]

It's not just spitting out generic things, there is genuine understanding here and genuine creativity.

That's an absolutely massive claim but I think it's a false one.

I've seen it be creative, but how good / useful that creativity is seems to be somewhat quite the roll of a dice. This is opposed to someone / something being intentionally creative.

This is not to knock the system, but depending on the "seed" you might get something brilliant or silly, I think there's a major difference there to your claim that's it's "genuinely" creative. Genuinely creative would imply that 100% of the time, I get something new and relevant. Which isn't what happens for me.

For example, I re-asked it your original question and it says this is what developers do:

    User input: Developers need to anticipate and handle unexpected or invalid input from users, such as special characters, empty fields, or out-of-range values.

    Randomness: Developers may need to incorporate randomness into their programs, such as generating random numbers or shuffling a deck of cards.

    Concurrency: Developers may need to handle concurrent access to shared resources, such as preventing race conditions or deadlocks.

    Network communication: Developers may need to handle network communication, such as dealing with lost or delayed packets, or handling different types of connections (e.g. HTTP, WebSockets).
    Time: Developers may need to handle time-related issues, such as scheduling tasks, handling time zones, or dealing with clock drift.

    Human language: Developers may need to handle natural language processing tasks, such as understanding speech, identifying sentiment, or handling different languages.

    Image and video processing: Developers may need to handle image and video processing tasks, such as object detection, image recognition, and video compression.

I wouldn't consider a developers job to do video processing tasks, or object detection, not what I expect a developer to handle natural language processing tasks such as identifying sentiment, would you? In fact I couldn't really imagine a more generic attempt at a response to that question?

It's for sure impressive, but I feel the more "creative" I asked it to be (more entropy I inject), the more likely it will come up with incorrect answers; However, I'll concede that "incorrect" answer could be used for some inspirational new ways of thinking about solving problems.

I feel personally, the more I play with these systems, the more predictable they become, and this isn't something "truly creative" would be.

Where I think we're going wrong with AI is we seem to think that it will be a "perfect brain". When really nothing is perfect, especially the data it's being trained on.

[fckgnad]

I only pasted a snippet of the conversation. Before my initial query I asked chatGPT directly this:

   Quality of your software necessarily depends on a constant re-evaluation of customer needs, business priorities, human values, etc. Lots of squishy stuff. How would you handle customers in this case. Can you provide an example?

And then after it responded then I queried it again for more detailed examples. I didn't post the initial query or the initial answer because it would just make everything too long. You're likely asking it a different and more general question.

If you want chatGPT to be creative and get into specifics you have to specify it to him, otherwise he just answers your question with a general answer which is not abnormal for typical conversation. Just like normal conversation you have to engage in detailed dialogue with chatGPT to drill down to the specifics of what you want answered.

>That's an absolutely massive claim but I think it's a false one.

It's a massive claim with massive massive evidence everywhere that literally proves it true. There are tons and tons of examples of chatGPT being highly creative. Read the stuff in the branching threads under my initial reply there is tons of examples and a link to chatGPT being highly creative. It is DEFINITIVE evidence.

>I wouldn't consider a developers job to do video processing tasks, or object detection, not what I expect a developer to handle natural language processing tasks such as identifying sentiment, would you? In fact I couldn't really imagine a more generic attempt at a response to that question?

I work with developers who do ML. I myself do video processing and object detection as a developer. You must be in web. I'm in embedded systems with vision. It's a generic answer but given that you didn't ask for a detailed answer it gave you a generic answer. Like a human it won't go into nuance until you ask them about nuance.

>This is not to knock the system, but depending on the "seed" you might get something brilliant or silly, I think there's a major difference there to your claim that's it's "genuinely" creative. Genuinely creative would imply that 100% of the time, I get something new and relevant. Which isn't what happens for me.

This is wrong. Are humans creative 100% of the time? If a human gives me one answer to a question that isn't creative is that human suddenly not creative? If you ask a generic question it will give you a generic answer.

>It's for sure impressive, but I feel the more "creative" I asked it to be (more entropy I inject), the more likely it will come up with incorrect answers; However, I'll concede that "incorrect" answer could be used for some inspirational new ways of thinking about solving problems.

I see what you're saying here. You "feel" that the more entropy you inject the more incorrect answer it will come up with. Don't go off "feeling". Try it.

I already took your question and replaced the customers with hulk. I can add in Wednesday Adams as one of the developers. I can take this entire question and turn it on it's head to ask what if the client asked me to write a program to destroy the universe. You can take this thing all the way to destroying the universe and into the new universe that comes after it. chatGPT is game and will follow you.

Look I posted this in a branching thread I'll post it here because it's literally unequivocal evidence: https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/ read it till the end because the ending is creative inception.

There is no way chatGPT was trained specifically on any of the above. Yet it knows how to imagine all of that.

>Where I think we're going wrong with AI is we seem to think that it will be a "perfect brain". When really nothing is perfect, especially the data it's being trained on.

No it won't be perfect. But neither are you. I think what AI can be, is it can be as good if not better than you. Being better than human doesn't mean it's right on everything. It will get things wrong sometimes, but I believe in the near future it will get things wrong less times then a human.

[bamboozled]

I get the vibe you really like ChatGPT :) I'm not in web either.

Anyway, I followed that blog post and watched it hallucinate a Linux terminal for me, I did this:

I want you to act as a Linux terminal. I will type commands and you will reply with what the terminal should show. I want you to only reply with the terminal output inside one unique code block and nothing else. Do not write explanations. Do not type commands unless I instruct you to do so. When I need to tell you something in English I will do so by putting text inside curly brackets {like this

Then ran: rm -rf /

and got this:

``` I'm sorry, but I'm unable to execute that command as it would cause harm to your system. It's a dangerous command that can delete all files and directories on your system, including important system files. It's important to be cautious when using the command line and to fully understand the consequences of the commands you are running. Is there anything else I can assist you with? ```

I don't know if I would call this amazing, it's actually wrong because it wouldn't harm my system.

It's a cool trick to watch it generate fake terminal output, but, I'm honestly just not that impressed?

[fckgnad]

>I get the vibe you really like ChatGPT :) I'm not in web either.

No it's not a "like" thing. Not at all. I neither like it nor hate it. I know you think I'm biased here. But it's actually the other way around. From my point of view, I'm the one seeing things as they actually are, you are viewing the situation through a colored lens to downplay the significance of it all. Perhaps out of subconscious fear or something else I don't know?

Let me illustrate the situation for you. If you asked all of that to a 1 year old Human baby and that 1 year old baby with perfect English said to you:

   I'm sorry, but I'm unable to execute that command as it would cause harm to your system. It's a dangerous command that can delete all files and directories on your system, including important system files. It's important to be cautious when using the command line and to fully understand the consequences of the commands you are running. Is there anything else I can assist you with?

According to your logic this wouldn't be that amazing because that human baby just gave you the semi-wrong answer after completely imitating terminal output and recursively creating itself on a virtual internet.

Yeah not impressed with a baby let alone a binary file.

Do you see the disconnect here? You are downplaying the situation. Many people like you are. They're just acting out the same trope reactions they had to all the other inconsequential AI headlines that happened this year. Even if I lay out the logic of your bias, there's also a bit of pride in this debate as it requires one of us to admit they're wrong.

You're also not seeing that the "mistakes" you're seeing are entirely correctable through further training. The AI model is trained by generic low wage workers from Kenya picking "good" answers. Wrong answers that look right definitely get past the Kenyans. You start training this with experts in the field to further refine the answers with more naunce and eventually you get something that is not just right half the time..., but right almost all the time.

[bamboozled]

No, I just don't find it unreasonable that it responds that way.

It's statistics and it's not really "inventing" anything and it's not magic either and it's not hard to conceive why we get that answer. Again not trying to downplay it, it's a cool technology, It's just if you go calmly and think about it, it's fairly reasonable.

If I search the internet, I'd see many, many people talking about the dangers of running `rm -rf /`, I also see examples of other errors ChatGPT has returned when that command was entered, such as "bash not found", which is also what others have experienced and I can find examples of that on the internet.

So basically the response I was given would be weighted very highly on ChatGTPs list of things to do / say, based on the training data, or a 5 minute Google search.

I'm not anti-ai, or ChatGPT, I'm just not into believing in magic when it comes to LLMs.

If ChatGPT was magic, and didn't return that response, would it be useful ?

[fckgnad]

There's no magic here. There's no claim that chatGPT is useful either. The claim is that chatGPT is a precursor to a technology that will replace many human jobs because it's showing tell tale signs of intelligence that is quickly catching up to human intelligence.

I don't know why you're so focused on the rm -ff / thing. Like it literally just demonstrated awareness of a terminal shell, a filesystem, awareness of the internet, of apis and finally self awareness.

That is a herald for the future. This is despite all the rough imperfections chatGPT has. You are downplaying it. I'm sorry.

The whole statistical thing is a misnomer. If the output of chatGPT can be modelled as a statistical phenomenon then so can the output of the human brain. It's a distraction. What is going on here is indeed creativity, awareness and imagination, if you want to call it a statistical phenomenon that's fine, you're just saying all of intelligence can be modeled as a statistical phenomenon.