zlacker

>>grader+(OP)
The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe of a bit of software that chains words to another based on some statistical model.

The sad truth is that ChatGPT is about as good an AI as ELIZA was in 1966, it's just better (granted: much better) at hiding its total lack of actual human understanding. It's nothing more than an expensive parlor trick, IMHO.

Github CoPilot? Great, now I have to perform the most mentally taxing part of developing software, namely understanding other people's code (or my own from 6 months ago...) while writing new code. I'm beyond thrilled ...

So, no, I don't have an AI fatigue, because we absolutely have no AI anywhere. But I have a massive bullshit and hype fatigue that is getting worse all the time.

>>dual_d+ha
As much as I’m sick of AI products, I’m even more sick of the “ChatGPT is bullshit” argument.

>>rcme+5e
It can be both bullshit and utterly astounding.

In terms of closing the gap between AI hype and useful general purpose AI tools, no one can reasonably deny that it's an absolute quantum leap.

It's just not a daily driver for technical experts yet.

>>jvande+Cg
> quantum leap

Ironically accurate.

>>nhinck+xl
In normal English usage, a quantum leap is a step-change, a near-discrete rather than continuous improvement, a large singular advance.

Given we are not talking about state changes in electrons, there is nothing wrong with this description of ChatGPT - it truly does feel like a massive advance to anyone who has even cursorily played with it.

For example, you can ask it questions like "Who was born first, Margaret Thatcher or George Bush?" and "Who was born first, Tony Blair or George Bush?" and in each instance it infers which George Bush you are talking about.

I honestly couldn't imagine something like this being this good only three years ago.