[tivert]

> Yeah, you aren't wrong, but how do you know that you are talking to an actual human right now and not a GPT powered hackernews bot?

Because it's 2023, and GPT, while impressive in its way, still sucks. Even if you generated the text with GPT, you're still operating it and I'm interacting with you.

> Like you are assuming I'm a real person, but you don't know it. You can't ever really know it.

That's a little sophomoric. No one needs to know with perfect clarity. If bots ever get good enough and prevalent enough most social media users are fake, there will be a little lag as people figure it out. Then people who keep using social media will get mocked for wasting their time, and it will die.

[midwesternerer]

I'm just hoping that the robots dont hand wave away my arguments by making fun of them as "sophomoric".

[tivert]

> I'm just hoping that the robots dont hand wave away my arguments by making fun of them as "sophomoric".

I didn't hand-wave it away, I just labeled it correctly and addressed it.

A mind-blowing trump card of an "argument" it wasn't.

[midwesternerer]

Dude, your argument against it was 1) that a technology that has been public for six months isn't perfect 2) that smart people would just know that comments were not being made by humans.

I truly don't understand how you are interpreting this conversation.

[tivert]

> I truly don't understand how you are interpreting this conversation.

That makes sense, because you're pretty badly misunderstanding me (which your summary makes perfectly clear).

I mean, 1 was part of a direct answer to your own question "how do you know that you are talking to an actual human right now and not a GPT powered hackernews bot." Emphasis mine. Your 2 is just a total misunderstanding. Hint: I was talking about social knowledge, not "smart people just knowing" in any particular case.