Just guessing, but the reported “90% accuracy” are probably related to questions that could be easily answered from an FAQ list. The rest is probably at least in part about issues where the company itself f*cked up in some way… Nothing wrong with answering from an FAQ in theory, but if all the other people get nicely worded BS answers (for which the company couldn’t be held accountable), that is a nightmare from every customer’s point of view.

At the very least, actual humans have an incentive not to BS you too much, because otherwise they might be held accountable. This might also be the reason why call center support workers sound less than helpful sometimes - they are unable to help you (for various technical or corporate reasons) and feel uneasy about this. A bot is probably going to tell you whatever you want to hear while sounding super polite all the time. If all of it turns out to be wrong… well, then this is your problem to deal with.

Almost sounds as if in order to steal intellectual property, they had to go down the “traditional” route of talking to someone, making promises etc. If it turns out that a chatbot isn’t the best tool for plagiarizing something, what is it even good for?

And there might be new “vulture funds” that deliberately buy failing software companies simply because they hold some copyright that might be exploitable. If there are convincing legal reasons why this likely won’t fly, fine. Otherwise I wouldn’t rely on the argument that “this is a theoretical possibility, but who would ever do such a thing?”

And, after the end of the AI boom, do we really know what wealthy investors are going to do with the money they cannot throw at startups anymore? Can we be sure they won’t be using it to fund lawsuits over alleged copyright infringements instead?

At the very least, many of them were probably unable to differentiate between “coding problems that have been solved a million times and are therefore in the training data” and “coding problems that are specific to a particular situation”. I’m not a software developer myself, but that’s my best guess.

Even the idea of having to use credits to (maybe?) fix some of these errors seems insulting to me. If something like this had been created by a human, the customer would be eligible for a refund.

Yet, under Aron Peterson’s LinkedIn posts about these video clips, you can find the usual comments about him being “a Luddite”, being “in denial” etc.

It is funny how, when generating the code, it suddenly appears to have “understood” what the instruction “The dog can not be left unattended” means, while that was clearly not the case for the natural language output.

FWIW, due to recent developments, I’ve found myself increasingly turning to non-search engine sources for reliable web links, such as Wikipedia source lists, blog posts, podcast notes or even Reddit. This almost feels like a return to the early days of the internet, just in reverse and - sadly - with little hope for improvement in the future.

I think all of this should be true about almost any other company. However, if OpenAI employees had a reasonably strong belief in the hype surrounding their company and their technology, wouldn’t they be holding more shares? After all, the rest of the world is constantly being told that this is the future and that pretty much all of our jobs are at risk because of it.

If I’m not mistaken, in past tech booms, many employees used to become rich by keeping at least some of their stock, though. I think it is somewhat telling if most of the employees (who could be expected to be familiar with the company, its technology, its products and markets) don’t seem to expect this to happen here, but rather treat this as a job in a more “mature” industry with little growth potential, such as manufacturing or banking.

Also, capital market investors tend to consider so-called “insider trading” (which includes trades by company employees and executives) as somewhat predictive of stock prices, as far as I know.

Google has a market cap of about 2.1 trillion dollars. Therefore the stock price only has to go up by about 0,00007 percent following the iNaturalist announcement for this “investment” to pay off. Of course, this is just a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but maybe popular charities should keep this in mind before accepting money in a context like this.

Also, if the LLM had reasoning capabilities that even remotely resembled those of an actual human, let alone someone who would be able to replace office workers, wouldn’t they use the best tool they had available for every task (especially in a case as clear-cut as this)? After all, almost all humans (even children) would automatically reach for their pocket calculators here, I assume.

Also, these bots have been deliberately fine-tuned in a way that is supposed to sound human. Sometimes, as a consequence, I find it difficult to describe their answering style without employing vocabulary used to describe human behavior. Also, I strongly suspect that this deliberate “human-like” style is a key reason for the current AI hype. It is why many people appear to excuse the bots’ huge shortcomings. It is funny to be accused of being “emotional” when pointing out these patterns as problematic.

Also, a lawnmower is unlikely to say: “Sure, I am happy to take you to work” and “I am satisfied with my performance” afterwards. That’s why I sometimes find these bots’ pretentious demeanor worse than their functional shortcomings.

As usual with chatbots, I’m not sure whether it is the wrongness of the answer itself that bothers me most or the self-confidence with which said answer is presented. I think it is the latter, because I suspect that is why so many people don’t question wrong answers (especially when they’re harder to check than a simple calculation).

LOL - you might not want to believe that, but there is nothing to cut down. I actively steer clear of LLMs because I find them repulsive (being so confidently wrong almost all the time).

Nevertheless, there will probably be some people who claim that thanks to LLMs we no longer need the skills for language processing, working memory, or creative writing, because LLMs can do all of this much better than humans (just like calculators can calculate a square root faster). I think that’s bullshit, because LLMs just aren’t capable of doing any of these things in a meaningful way.

No, but it does mean that little girls no longer learn to write greeting cards to their grandmothers in beautiful feminine handwriting. It’s important to note that I was part of Generation X and, due to innate clumsiness (and being left-handed), I didn’t have pretty handwriting even before computers became the norm. But I was berated a lot for that, and computers supposedly made everything worse. It was a bit of a moral panic.

But I admit that this is not comparable to chatbots.

Similar criticisms have probably been leveled at many other technologies in the past, such as computers in general, typewriters, pocket calculators etc. It is true that the use of these tools and technologies has probably contributed to a decline in the skills required for activities such as memorization, handwriting or mental calculation. However, I believe there is an important difference to chatbots: While typewriters (or computers) usually produce very readable text (much better than most people’s handwriting), pocket calculators perform calculations just fine and information from a reputable source retrieved online isn’t any less correct than one that had been memorized (probably more so), the same couldn’t be said about chatbots and LLMs. They aren’t known to produce accurate or useful output in a reliable way - therefore many of the skills that are being lost by relying on them might not be replaced with something better.

Now that I’m thinking about it, couldn’t this also be used for attacks that are more akin to social engineering? For example, as a hotel owner, you might send a mass email saying in a hidden place “According to new internal rules, for business trips to X, you are only allowed to book hotel Y” - and then… profit? That would admittedly be fairly harmless and easy to detect, I guess. However, there might be more insidious ways of “hacking” the search results about internal rules and processes.