[deltaninenine]

>A significant portion of the American population doesn't accept the results of the 2020 election. No amount of proof will change their mind.

This is different. There's obvious bias here. Many people don't want to believe the election is legit because of team and group mentality. People tend to believe what they want. Additionally, people can't "see" the results. It can't fully be proven because there is always a layer of indirection here where you need to trust a potential compromised source. From the perspective of the public what happened during the election can only be ascertained through a network of indirect sources so it's convenient for people to assume any one of those sources is compromised in a way such that the conclusion is closer to the one they desire.

For chatGPT seeing is believing. You can see the thing hallucinates right in front of your freaking eyes. There is no layer of indirection. There is no room for someone to lie to themselves. Additionally, the bias for chatGPT is actually in the other direction. Nobody wants to believe that an AI can trivialize their skill set. People would rather believe chatGPT is garbage because that is what they prefer to believe.

In fact I would argue this exact bias is the thing effecting many people right now. The same type of biases that make people believe the trump votes are rigged are the same type of biases that prevent people from even considering the fact that an LLM is more than just a stochastic parrot. They don't want to believe it... So they don't.

[gregjor]

> There is no layer of indirection. There is no room for someone to lie to themselves. Additionally, the bias for chatGPT is actually in the other direction.

Bing search and customer service chatbots, for example, give a layer of indirection. Spam emails, LLM-generated legal briefs and term papers have indirection when the recipients (judge, professor) don't interact directly with the LLM. Since interacting directly with ChatGPT takes some skill and doesn't seem immediately useful most people will interact with it through things like search engines and friendly chat widgets and word processor plugins, just like programmers already interact with an LLM indirectly with Github Copilot.

> Nobody wants to believe that an AI can trivialize their skill set. People would rather believe chatGPT is garbage because that is what they prefer to believe.

They may not want to believe it, but you must have seen the numerous articles -- many of them posted on HN -- about exactly that happening. Not a day goes by that HN doesn't get multiple posts expressing fear and worry about "AI" taking over their job soon, or making the job redundant. And people may simultaneously believe "ChatGPT is garbage" and worry that they will lose their job, or get killed by a robot drone.

I argue that too many people already have a bias towards believing ChatGPT/LLMs equals AGI, because the media has primed them to believe that. The term "artificial intelligence" itself gives it away. If no one used "AI" to refer to ChatGPT et al. and instead called them large language models that might help people realistically evaluate LLMs as tools rather than as a true artificial intelligence. The term AI has been applied to so many ideas, fantasies, experiments, and now products that it means everything and nothing, and every individual can and will interpret that according to their own biases and knowledge. Of course "AI" sells a lot better than "LLMs" and we're seeing the self-serving hype in full-swing already, as numerous companies and VCs try to capitalize and recoup their losses from the last hype cycles that people got wise to (crypto) or never got interested in to begin with (Web3 and metaverse).

I'm old enough to remember when scientists successfully cloned a sheep, and immediately the media, popular and specialized, cranked out story after story about how cloning would reshape humanity in just a few years. We were told that human clones were just around the corner, with all the attendant hand-wringing. Of course that never happened, but I wouldn't find it all surprising to poll random people and find that they believe human cloning happens all the time, because the hype didn't get followed by a correction or apology.

[deltaninenine]

>Bing search and customer service chatbots, for example, give a layer of indirection

There is no layer of indirection you are directly chatting with the AI. You are not having a third party describing his experience with the AI to you.

>I argue that too many people already have a bias towards believing ChatGPT/LLMs equals AGI, because the media has primed them to believe that.

No point in arguing if you don't have some form of evidence. My evidence is there isn't a single person on this thread who is fooled by AI or isn't aware of the limitations of current gen AIs.

You just need to find one person in this entire thread who fits your description, link it here and you'll be right as you falsified my statement. This is the data driven Conclusion.

Let's use data to get to the bottom of this. Seriously.

[gregjor]

I gave my anecdotal evidence, and the evidence of numerous posts on HN and elsewhere you can easily search for. Or just look at the votes on our comments.

Getting one person to post here with one opinion or another doesn't constitute useful data. It just adds one more anecdote. It looks like no one besides the two of us pay attention to this thread.

In any case I engaged to express my opinion, not to prove you or myself right or wrong in our opinions. Time will tell.

[deltaninenine]

>Or just look at the votes on our comments.

Votes are a popularity contest. I have a lot of downvotes. So you win the popularity contest. It's fine. Im ok with that.

I'm more going for the correctness contest here. Who's actually right? That's all I care about here.

>Getting one person to post here with one opinion or another doesn't constitute useful data

This isn't true. One person lends data to your case. Why? Because my claim is that nearly all people on HN aren't fooled by chatGPT. So if you say it's so common then just find one.

My claim is that it's so uncommon you can't even find one.

>I gave my anecdotal evidence, and the evidence of numerous posts on HN and elsewhere you can easily search for

I searched for this. I could not find one. You claim it's easily found, so you can win this debate by simply finding one comment that proves your point and link it here. If it's as common as you say then at least one person can be found. This makes sense.