For me, asking something on the Internet, like on stackoverflow is usually, the very last option. I am too afraid to get ridiculed for it or get scolded for not having put enough effort in my question that already feels more as a thesis. Maybe this is just me and this does not reflect reality but I do have the nagging feeling I a bother somebody with it and it gives a bit of stress.
Not so with ChatGPT, I can just ask away and it will always happily give me an answer (unfortunately also when it didn't really know a good one).
Though I am happy for the people that just continue asking questions to actual humans and those answering it, if only to continue to feed the model ;)
> Maybe this is just me and this does not reflect reality but I do have the nagging feeling I a bother somebody with it and it gives a bit of stress.
It's not just you. I'm the same way myself - and was since I can remember. On Internet boards, I very rarely ask questions. I answer, or post tangential thoughts, but don't bother people with questions unless I really need the answer, and exhausted the ways of finding it on my own.
There's another angle to it too - impatience. A big part of my resistance to asking question is the unpredictable, and usually large delay between me asking, and getting any kind of answer. This applies to community Slacks, Discords, etc. Thing is, if I have a question to ask, I usually need the answer right now. If I have to wait, I'll context switch, which is deadly for whatever I was doing at that moment.
ChatGPT is a quite good alternative here. I can ask it a question, and refine it based on the answer if it's too vague. The answers I get either solve my problem or point in the direction of solution (that's true even if AI is having an acid trip). And, importantly, I get the answers near-immediately, with no unpredictable delays. I also don't need to cross some karma thresholds, worry about upvote/downvote ratio (too low -> question dies in obscurity), "use the Google, Luke" answers, moderators locking threads for bullshit reasons (hello StackOverflow), etc.
> There's another angle to it too - impatience. A big part of my resistance to asking question is the unpredictable, and usually large delay between me asking, and getting any kind of answer. This applies to community Slacks, Discords, etc. Thing is, if I have a question to ask, I usually need the answer right now. If I have to wait, I'll context switch, which is deadly for whatever I was doing at that moment.
Bingo. If I'm in the zone in terms of flow, have the right level of caffiene, etc., having to stop and chase people -- then wait -- breaks that flow. In many cases, it simply punts the flow until tomorrow, or the day after.
I mean the bad parts of this are reflexive. I am also a serial answerer and a rare questioner.
Due to chat gpt I am less likely to go to the forum to look for things to answer. So I assume this will be bad for both people asking questions and looking for answers.
As someone who never asked a question in StackOverflow for what are probably similar reasons (despite being in this career for 20 years), I still find that ChatGPT in this regard is still more like a Google or an improved StackOverflow/documentation search…
It can infer some things, modify variable names to match mine, but for the real hairy stuff I still gotta do the legwork myself, normally by reaching out for the source code.
I did. For the kind of creative/exploratory stuff I’d normally go to the source code myself for, I find that even GPT-4 still hallucinates quite a bit. Even when it has the source code, it still makes up random functions and parameters. Even when the source code is minimal.
It will probably work better in the future, but so far it is a bit limited. Probably a memory limitation more than anything.
> This is the best feature of ChatGPT for me, and the reason I pay for it.
While I completely understand this sentiment, I would be wary of Service as a Software Substitute being your alternative to human contact. If we start feeling (something akin to) genuine human connection to a service, the company providing the service has a large amount leverage over us. The scene from Blade Runner 2049 comes to mind. Additionally, the emotional connection might make us an order of magnitude more vulnerable to brainwashing and psyops.
Let's be more precise by what we mean by "human interactions" / "human contact" here. For example:
- An alternative outlet for venting/intimate conversations than your friends/spouse? I can see a problem growing here.
- A replacement/substitute for a therapist? I doubt even GPT-4 can do that job better than actual therapist (especially when face to face, not over Zoom), but there are many scenarios where ChatGPT would still be useful - perhaps one can't afford therapy, or otherwise doesn't have access to it, or one feels their issues don't warrant a proper therapy just yet.
- Related to the above, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is one technique known to be somewhat effective when done alone with a book (relative to the effectiveness of individual/group therapy). I can imagine ChatGPT making this kind of self-help easier, and more effective. I know there have been attempts to make CBT chatbots some years ago (obviously prior to "GPT revolution"), but I don't know how effective they turned out to be.
- An alternative to posting questions on forums, group chats, or asking random people? IDK. maybe let's split it:
-- Individuals you know, directly or via group chat, and small communities - conversations there are simultaneously transactional/object-level and create interpersonal bonds. Replacing that with ChatGPT could make one worse off. However, some people (myself included) already have difficulty with this kind of interaction, so ChatGPT here is strictly positive (both in delivering answers and helping form a habit of phrasing questions/requests instead of doing Google searches).
-- Mass audience forums - Reddit, HN, Facebook comments, StackOverflow, etc. - the community might lose out a bit on reduced participation, but individually, I feel if ChatGPT can give you a satisfying answer to your question, you should use it, and relevant forums you frequent are likely better off with you not posting that question.
> - A replacement/substitute for a therapist? I doubt even GPT-4 can do that job better than actual therapist
Maybe if you qualify that with “unusually good” therapist. IME even Eliza in Emacs is better than most therapists. ChatGPT surely leaves them in the dust.
> Maybe if you qualify that with “unusually good” therapist.
Not "unusually good", but a working match, sure. A thing not enough people realize is that therapy is like dating. Not every therapist is going to be a "good match" for you, so if things don't seem to click for some reason, just thank them and go look for another one.
> IME even Eliza in Emacs is better than most therapists. ChatGPT surely leaves them in the dust.
If limited to textual channel, maybe. But a real therapy will have at least the visual channel (if on Zoom), or full presence (if in person) - there's a lot of information relevant to therapy that gets communicated this way. Tone, cadence, uncontrolled reactions, body language, etc. That alone gives even a mediocre therapist a leg up in this comparison.
People like me have an issue asking people questions specifically because people-related reasons. LLMs aren't people (yet), so those reasons don't apply. So in this context, the technology is making things easier for us.
> If we start feeling (something akin to) genuine human connection to a service
I don't. I see it as a tool, and I treat it as a tool. I don't have with it any more of a human connection than I have with IntelliJ where I type my code or the Linux Mint where it runs. Meaning - I like the tool, but that's about it.
On the other hand, I also don't have any genuine human connection with the random humans I happened to interact on the internet. In a sense, they are just text on a screen, and could be bots for all I care.
But that depends on which interactions it replaces. There are people I don't want to talk to. Not always because I don't like them but because it's technicalities and unrewarding forced interactions. For example, clerks at the tax office who just do their job.
But on the other hand, there are interactions which I really don't want to miss! "Girlfriend" GPT is already targeting the most intricate and joyful interactions in my life: my SO.
Let's say we break up and I fall into a depression. Instead of recovering and moving on, will I install a personal OSS AI companion to save myself the hassle of modern dating? Therefore preventing myself from attempting novel interactions sooner? Or will it help me instead to overcome a dark period and prime me for the future?
Can it help people combat loneliness - a disease widespread and not to be trifled with? Or will it enhance loneliness by effectively fooling your brain into not caring anymore because you can just open an app?
At what point will it not matter anymore because saving someone from depression is more valuable than keeping it "real" at all times?
Apart from the other answers, I want to add that there is a significant difference between loneliness and solitude. Loneliness is when you're alone but don't want to be. Solitude is when you're alone but perfectly content with it - you may even seek it.
As humans are social creatures, loneliness tends to arise when meaningful social interactions are consistently insufficient and you feel excluded from any relevant peer groups (family & friends mostly). This, of course, is a subjective matter.
Yes. Loneliness is associated with extremely negative health outcomes comparable to physical disease, and some countries like the UK have gone as far as creating a dedicated minister to tackle the issue.
It's definitely a "civilizational disease" - a widespread condition that has deteriorating effect on mental health and happiness, noticeable at scale, caused by... the structure and pressures of modern living in urbanized, developed countries. It's also not something most individuals can "just fix" on their own through lifestyle intervention.
I agree that removing some human interactions from my life is good. I vastly prefer self-checkouts in shops. However, I know I'm quite content spending my time alone. Being forced to go and interact with people when I want to talk about ideas or ask questions keeps my "alone tendency" in balance, and has lead to really meaningful conversations and friendships.
> I agree that removing some human interactions from my life is good. I vastly prefer self-checkouts in shops.
Curious example. Personally, I hate self-checkouts machines, and consider them an example of stores abusing their "stickiness" to profit at the expense of both customers and employees, and get away with it.
First of all, like most "self service" solution, it's basically making the user/customer do the work that, before, was done by the service. Secondly, it's just plain less efficient. You need some 3-4 self-checkout machines and a dedicated person to watch them (to e.g. approve alcohol purchases), just to replace one clerk and their station, while keeping throughput more-less the same. What the stores do instead is, install 2 stations per replaced cashier, and have existing employees do the "watch duty" - which is why half the self-checkout machines end up being stuck for 5 minutes at a time, waiting for the overworked employee to finish resupplying a shelf, and walk all the way to the checkout arena to swipe their card a few times.
The queues get longer, people get more aggressive, everyone is doing unpaid work for the store. Madness.
Heh, I find self checkout more efficient. I use multiple bags when bagging and pre-sort items based on where they go in my kitchen. Plus most baggers are terrible at bagging and just resort to a massive number of bags which kinda ignores the purpose of the bags.
I haven't been to shop with baggers, so that time is more-less constant for me (except for the pressure to bag faster, which isn't present with self-checkout). However, the cashiers are absurdly fast at scanning. Their workstation is optimized for this, and they scan through things faster than I can move them into bags. Even without any exceptional circumstances that make you wait for assistance at self-service checkout, scanning speed alone cuts the time per customer at least by half.
On a per-item basis, absolutely, but what's the number of self-service checkouts at which they faster simply by having a much larger number of kiosks? Having 10 check stands open for 10 customers, each with their own employee is inefficient, but having 15 self service kiosks open isn't out of the question.
This. While not me personally, there is obviously a market (Japan comes to mind) for virtual, non-human based interactions and relationships.
While it seems pretty clear to me subjectively that removing human interaction from your life has a negative effect it's still desired by some and they're entitled to that.
i don't disagree with you, but if you're already terminally online whats the difference.
The internet and social media has exacerbated a societal problem that has always existed, so now we have the problem why not make it more meaningful and less depressing.