Care to elaborate why not? Interested in your viewpoint
ChatGPT consistently makes up shit. It's difficult to tell when something is made up because it's a language model so it is supposed to sound confident as if it's any person telling a fact that they know.
It knows how to talk like a subject matter expert because that's usually what gets publicized most and thus that's what it's trained on, but it doesn't always know the facts necessary to answer questions. It makes shit up to fill the gap and then presents it intelligently, but it's wrong.
Most of the time I use assistant to either perform home automation tasks, or look stuff up online. The first one already works fine, and for the second one I won't trust a glorified autocomplete.
Good point, hallucinations only add to the fake news problem and artificial content problem.
I’ll counter with this: how do you know the stuff you look up online is legit? Should we go back to encyclopedias? Who writes those?
Edit: in case anyone isn’t aware, GPT “hallucinates” made up information in specific cases when temperature and top_p settings aren’t optimized, wasn’t saying anyone’s opinion was a hallucination of course
Some generative chatbots will say something then link to where the info is from. That's good because I can followup
Some will just say something. That's bad and I'll have to search myself afterwards.
It's the equivalent of a book with no cover or a webpage where I can't see what website it's on. Maybe it's reputable, maybe it's not. Without a source I can't really decide
Ya, it’s utterly baffling to me that anyone would use a tool that predicts the next word in a sentence to try and learn something. Besides, what’s the endgame when no reporter could make a living because all their words are laundered and fed into a most people are saying bot? At that point new and unknown news, information, and facts will just be filtered out unless a lot of clickbait sites steal them because they the words don’t show up in the average conversation frequently enough.
Amusing, much like the Cryptocurrency and NFT industry where everyone from the CEO of Openai to the majority of the influencers came from, the extent that the system remind useable at all is reliant on the technology being niche. If it ever actually did become the primary method the tech would fundamentally collapse under its own weight.
how do you know the stuff you look up online is legit?
I feel like this question is rhetorical but if it's not, I'm surprised anyone on Lemmy isn't aware of how to cross reference when fact checking.
I'm more than happy to help with that if required.
Yep you got me!
Was leading onto this side of the debate, but basically our collective knowledge, hell our collective experiences are not objective. Our assumptions, mistakes, wordings which result in different interpreted meanings, etc all contribute to some level of disinformation.
Now let’s not be as nit picky and accept that some detail fudging isn’t the end of the world and happens frequently. We can cross reference each others’ accounts but even that only works to an extent.
Whole cultures might bare witness to an event and perceive it to be about x y or z, whereas the next door neighbor might see it completely different.
AI to me really isn’t that far off from the winners being the ones to write the history books, or that strange or unexpected events naturally cause human brains to recollect them in incorrect detail and accuracy.
Fact checking is about making sure the things we know are true. You seem to be saying that we can't obtain objective facts in order to verify what is true, but this is incorrect.
It's important to understand that if needed, everything we know can be verified. You can obtain the sources of the work done that shows how it was done, when and by whom.
None of that is subjective. If it were, your TV wouldn't work, aeroplane's could not fly and the device you used to read and comment here would not exist.
"Everything" is not subjective and to say so is no different than belief in magic.
Not quite what I meant, I was merely pointing out that we should be cognizant and of how our world view and others views might shape and define what’s considered history or fact.
All in all, central points of authority are inherently vulnerable to misinformation. I personally think communal (and biological namely) sources of information shared and verified by each other is far more valuable.
Why settle to see the rainbow for your own favorite color when there’s such an amazing and valuable spectrum available. So very digital of us
how our world view and others views might shape and define what’s considered history or fact.
communal (and biological namely) sources of information shared and verified by each other is far more valuable.
You're still implying that obtaining objective facts is less reliable than made up stories.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, could you explain why you think that is please?
I’m admittedly a little confused on how you might still think this. Could you explain your train of thought for how I think that (what’s the bridge between the two quotes you’re using?)
To be clear, objective fact is obtainable by reproducibility (scientific process namely) but that doesn’t really work as well for “objective fact” regarding previous events when you expand them past “this event happened” (I.e. this happened because xyz)
I think a lot of people blur the line between the event itself and the rationale/explanation behind it. That’s really the crux of the problem as I see it and am trying to bring awareness to.
Hmm, then we could be talking past each other. I'm bridging the two as polar opposites but you say that's not what you're getting at?
“objective fact” regarding previous events when you expand them past “this event happened” (I.e. this happened because xyz)
Could you expand on this? Preferably with an example using something other than history, eg a reaction or a sum.
Well no, I can’t. That’s because that snippet was in reference to non-reproducible things, like history really. Science is Queen of objectivity in that you can take the exact same steps and physics ensures that things happen again in the same way
With history, it’s about interactions between complex, ever-changing human psychologies. It’s about decisions made that might not necessarily be restricted to laws like physics, but maybe what you had for breakfast that day, or what your first interaction with another human was like.
Now technically, maybe one day in the future we could use physics and insane measurements of humans to predict behavior and what not like we can with say a chemical reaction, but that’s pretty far out and I’m not sure we’d want to do that (despot being driven to do it anyway because someone else will and they’ll use it for harm)
Cause Chatgpt isn't reliable on actual information and i don't want to have any "assistant" at all.
Fair enough!
Collects your data, profiles you based on your typing style, what you type etc.
Regular assistants, websites, stores etc all do this exact same thing already for what it’s worth.
People do too!
people/regular aassistants don't sell my data to do highest bidder
By regular assistant I meant google, Samsung, etc not like a person.
People just give it away for free to each other.
you intentionally refuse to understand what I am saying, yes I don't use google, samsung or any other assistants either. People talking about me is not a problem corporations and governments spying on me is.
I’m sorry excuse me? I’m not intentionally doing anything. Maybe instead of attributing malice, you might opt for ignorance next time. I can only understand what I understand and you can only communicate as effectively as you can. There’s plenty of room for leeway and benefit of doubt here, unless you’d like another hive mind Reddit clone.
Realigning with the conversation, I can understand not wanting powerful parties knowing all about you. They’re much more severe (generally) than people can be. But for some, people can be just as damaging if they have it out for you for whatever reason (gender, sexual orientation, race, success, pissed them off and they’re psychotic, etc)
My outlook on privacy isn’t to obscure or hide information but to inflate it with noise instead. Finding a back alley doorway to a building is much easier than finding the right hotel room in a complex of hotels.
Obviously not everyone subscribes to this tactic but I wanted to share my outlook as well. I was just sharing what I know and have with you. Wasn’t meant to be a heated debate.
Man this type of shit is why I'm getting rid of google Assistant and going to a FOSS home assistant setup. I don't want chat gpt. I want to add things to my calendar, my shopping list, turn off lights and open/close blinds. I want to mute speakers at a certain time with a routine that isn't broken every five minutes. I want timers that work reliably. I want to be able to make an announcement when Amazon is at the door. Why are they making this so difficult?
Yes, this works on Pixels. Home Assistant is a mature open source home automation platform.
I'll be able to. But I most certainly won't do it. No thanks.
How can it replace Google assistant if there is no Google assistant on my phone. (I removed it)
What about.. Neither?
That is literally an option you can select...
which, I did
I just want to be able to consistently make searches using what's on my phone screen. Is that too much to ask? The screen search button disappears every other month and I'm sick of it. I don't invoke the Assistant for any other reason.
Digital assistants are good for timers, turning on smart lights, and sometimes playing music. None of those things require a large language model to spit random text back at me.
Can't see it being that useful if it remains restricted to info 2+ years old.
You wouldn't be able to ask it the weather or anything of the sort.
No thanks.
Care to elaborate why not? Interested in your viewpoint
ChatGPT consistently makes up shit. It's difficult to tell when something is made up because it's a language model so it is supposed to sound confident as if it's any person telling a fact that they know.
It knows how to talk like a subject matter expert because that's usually what gets publicized most and thus that's what it's trained on, but it doesn't always know the facts necessary to answer questions. It makes shit up to fill the gap and then presents it intelligently, but it's wrong.
Most of the time I use assistant to either perform home automation tasks, or look stuff up online. The first one already works fine, and for the second one I won't trust a glorified autocomplete.
Good point, hallucinations only add to the fake news problem and artificial content problem.
I’ll counter with this: how do you know the stuff you look up online is legit? Should we go back to encyclopedias? Who writes those?
Edit: in case anyone isn’t aware, GPT “hallucinates” made up information in specific cases when temperature and top_p settings aren’t optimized, wasn’t saying anyone’s opinion was a hallucination of course
Some generative chatbots will say something then link to where the info is from. That's good because I can followup
Some will just say something. That's bad and I'll have to search myself afterwards.
It's the equivalent of a book with no cover or a webpage where I can't see what website it's on. Maybe it's reputable, maybe it's not. Without a source I can't really decide
Ya, it’s utterly baffling to me that anyone would use a tool that predicts the next word in a sentence to try and learn something. Besides, what’s the endgame when no reporter could make a living because all their words are laundered and fed into a most people are saying bot? At that point new and unknown news, information, and facts will just be filtered out unless a lot of clickbait sites steal them because they the words don’t show up in the average conversation frequently enough.
Amusing, much like the Cryptocurrency and NFT industry where everyone from the CEO of Openai to the majority of the influencers came from, the extent that the system remind useable at all is reliant on the technology being niche. If it ever actually did become the primary method the tech would fundamentally collapse under its own weight.
I feel like this question is rhetorical but if it's not, I'm surprised anyone on Lemmy isn't aware of how to cross reference when fact checking.
I'm more than happy to help with that if required.
Yep you got me!
Was leading onto this side of the debate, but basically our collective knowledge, hell our collective experiences are not objective. Our assumptions, mistakes, wordings which result in different interpreted meanings, etc all contribute to some level of disinformation.
Now let’s not be as nit picky and accept that some detail fudging isn’t the end of the world and happens frequently. We can cross reference each others’ accounts but even that only works to an extent.
Whole cultures might bare witness to an event and perceive it to be about x y or z, whereas the next door neighbor might see it completely different.
AI to me really isn’t that far off from the winners being the ones to write the history books, or that strange or unexpected events naturally cause human brains to recollect them in incorrect detail and accuracy.
Fact checking is about making sure the things we know are true. You seem to be saying that we can't obtain objective facts in order to verify what is true, but this is incorrect.
It's important to understand that if needed, everything we know can be verified. You can obtain the sources of the work done that shows how it was done, when and by whom.
None of that is subjective. If it were, your TV wouldn't work, aeroplane's could not fly and the device you used to read and comment here would not exist.
"Everything" is not subjective and to say so is no different than belief in magic.
Not quite what I meant, I was merely pointing out that we should be cognizant and of how our world view and others views might shape and define what’s considered history or fact.
All in all, central points of authority are inherently vulnerable to misinformation. I personally think communal (and biological namely) sources of information shared and verified by each other is far more valuable.
Why settle to see the rainbow for your own favorite color when there’s such an amazing and valuable spectrum available. So very digital of us
You're still implying that obtaining objective facts is less reliable than made up stories.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, could you explain why you think that is please?
I’m admittedly a little confused on how you might still think this. Could you explain your train of thought for how I think that (what’s the bridge between the two quotes you’re using?)
To be clear, objective fact is obtainable by reproducibility (scientific process namely) but that doesn’t really work as well for “objective fact” regarding previous events when you expand them past “this event happened” (I.e. this happened because xyz)
I think a lot of people blur the line between the event itself and the rationale/explanation behind it. That’s really the crux of the problem as I see it and am trying to bring awareness to.
Hmm, then we could be talking past each other. I'm bridging the two as polar opposites but you say that's not what you're getting at?
Could you expand on this? Preferably with an example using something other than history, eg a reaction or a sum.
Well no, I can’t. That’s because that snippet was in reference to non-reproducible things, like history really. Science is Queen of objectivity in that you can take the exact same steps and physics ensures that things happen again in the same way
With history, it’s about interactions between complex, ever-changing human psychologies. It’s about decisions made that might not necessarily be restricted to laws like physics, but maybe what you had for breakfast that day, or what your first interaction with another human was like.
Now technically, maybe one day in the future we could use physics and insane measurements of humans to predict behavior and what not like we can with say a chemical reaction, but that’s pretty far out and I’m not sure we’d want to do that (despot being driven to do it anyway because someone else will and they’ll use it for harm)
Cause Chatgpt isn't reliable on actual information and i don't want to have any "assistant" at all.
Fair enough!
Collects your data, profiles you based on your typing style, what you type etc.
Regular assistants, websites, stores etc all do this exact same thing already for what it’s worth.
People do too!
people/regular aassistants don't sell my data to do highest bidder
By regular assistant I meant google, Samsung, etc not like a person.
People just give it away for free to each other.
you intentionally refuse to understand what I am saying, yes I don't use google, samsung or any other assistants either. People talking about me is not a problem corporations and governments spying on me is.
I’m sorry excuse me? I’m not intentionally doing anything. Maybe instead of attributing malice, you might opt for ignorance next time. I can only understand what I understand and you can only communicate as effectively as you can. There’s plenty of room for leeway and benefit of doubt here, unless you’d like another hive mind Reddit clone.
Realigning with the conversation, I can understand not wanting powerful parties knowing all about you. They’re much more severe (generally) than people can be. But for some, people can be just as damaging if they have it out for you for whatever reason (gender, sexual orientation, race, success, pissed them off and they’re psychotic, etc)
My outlook on privacy isn’t to obscure or hide information but to inflate it with noise instead. Finding a back alley doorway to a building is much easier than finding the right hotel room in a complex of hotels.
Obviously not everyone subscribes to this tactic but I wanted to share my outlook as well. I was just sharing what I know and have with you. Wasn’t meant to be a heated debate.
Man this type of shit is why I'm getting rid of google Assistant and going to a FOSS home assistant setup. I don't want chat gpt. I want to add things to my calendar, my shopping list, turn off lights and open/close blinds. I want to mute speakers at a certain time with a routine that isn't broken every five minutes. I want timers that work reliably. I want to be able to make an announcement when Amazon is at the door. Why are they making this so difficult?
Are there any HA smart speakers ?
A couple dev boxes:
Nothing commercial available is very good, but hopefully that will change soon.
Must be difficult because thus far no one has been able to do any of those things with any degree of reliability.
Details!
How do you disable assistant and what do you use instead. How good is it? Does it work on pixels?
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/0b789715-c7c7-425c-bb2d-c51d14c26de0.png
Yes, this works on Pixels. Home Assistant is a mature open source home automation platform.
I'll be able to. But I most certainly won't do it. No thanks.
How can it replace Google assistant if there is no Google assistant on my phone. (I removed it)
What about.. Neither?
That is literally an option you can select...
which, I did
I just want to be able to consistently make searches using what's on my phone screen. Is that too much to ask? The screen search button disappears every other month and I'm sick of it. I don't invoke the Assistant for any other reason.
Digital assistants are good for timers, turning on smart lights, and sometimes playing music. None of those things require a large language model to spit random text back at me.
Can't see it being that useful if it remains restricted to info 2+ years old.
You wouldn't be able to ask it the weather or anything of the sort.