▲ 328 ▼ ChatGPT spends 'tens of millions of dollars' on people saying 'please' and 'thank you', but Sam Altman says it's worth it (www.techradar.com) submitted 1 year ago by flightyhobler@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] CompostMaterial@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (5 children) And your qualifications in computer science are....? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 child) Hi, I have a degree in computer science and work with AI every day. Feelings aren't a good way to measure things scientifically, they are right about that. But saying that words can just be filtered is easier said than done. You're back at needing to do a lot of processing to identify and purge these words. This is still going to cost a lot of money and potentially lead to less meaningful inputs. Now you also have to maintain the software that does the word identification, keep it well tested, maintain monitoring and analytics for it, and so on. So, in short, everyone here is wrong and I'm considering packing it all in and buying a small potato farm with no internet connection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* The big thing here is that 'polite' words are being singled out as extraneous when there are tons of extraneous words being used. The focus is on words that make it seem like AI has feelings or intent. There is no reason to filter any words, because the entire point of LLMs is to take inefficient human communication and do stuff with it. 'Please' isn't any more of a waste that 'the' or including a period at the end of a sentence. Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is so horribly inefficient that 'extra' words cost millions of dollars to process. Holy shit that is terrible design. permalink fedilink source parent [+] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) I'm smart enough to know that an article peppered with assumption and zero facts is dogshit. Presumably might could Doesn't matter how educated someone is when they write a bunch of words about possibilities with no actual evidence. They are morons because they are spouting a bunch of useless speculation about a shitty and unreliable technology and naval gazing about whether 'being polite' to a bullshit generator is beneficial. I feel dumber for having read both the article and the linked article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dil@is.hardlywork.ing 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Your never supposed to show certainty unless its like 99.95% I thought permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago Maybe don't write an article speculating about something possible being true based on another article that is also speculating about something being possible when it being able to confirm it is possible. Like speculating about dinosaurs makes sense as we don't have a way to verify their soft tissues. But when it comes to AI, there are ways to actually confirm the reliability of responses. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 child) Hi, I have a degree in computer science and work with AI every day. Feelings aren't a good way to measure things scientifically, they are right about that. But saying that words can just be filtered is easier said than done. You're back at needing to do a lot of processing to identify and purge these words. This is still going to cost a lot of money and potentially lead to less meaningful inputs. Now you also have to maintain the software that does the word identification, keep it well tested, maintain monitoring and analytics for it, and so on. So, in short, everyone here is wrong and I'm considering packing it all in and buying a small potato farm with no internet connection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* The big thing here is that 'polite' words are being singled out as extraneous when there are tons of extraneous words being used. The focus is on words that make it seem like AI has feelings or intent. There is no reason to filter any words, because the entire point of LLMs is to take inefficient human communication and do stuff with it. 'Please' isn't any more of a waste that 'the' or including a period at the end of a sentence. Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is so horribly inefficient that 'extra' words cost millions of dollars to process. Holy shit that is terrible design. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* The big thing here is that 'polite' words are being singled out as extraneous when there are tons of extraneous words being used. The focus is on words that make it seem like AI has feelings or intent. There is no reason to filter any words, because the entire point of LLMs is to take inefficient human communication and do stuff with it. 'Please' isn't any more of a waste that 'the' or including a period at the end of a sentence. Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is so horribly inefficient that 'extra' words cost millions of dollars to process. Holy shit that is terrible design. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) I'm smart enough to know that an article peppered with assumption and zero facts is dogshit. Presumably might could Doesn't matter how educated someone is when they write a bunch of words about possibilities with no actual evidence. They are morons because they are spouting a bunch of useless speculation about a shitty and unreliable technology and naval gazing about whether 'being polite' to a bullshit generator is beneficial. I feel dumber for having read both the article and the linked article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dil@is.hardlywork.ing 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Your never supposed to show certainty unless its like 99.95% I thought permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago Maybe don't write an article speculating about something possible being true based on another article that is also speculating about something being possible when it being able to confirm it is possible. Like speculating about dinosaurs makes sense as we don't have a way to verify their soft tissues. But when it comes to AI, there are ways to actually confirm the reliability of responses. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dil@is.hardlywork.ing 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Your never supposed to show certainty unless its like 99.95% I thought permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago Maybe don't write an article speculating about something possible being true based on another article that is also speculating about something being possible when it being able to confirm it is possible. Like speculating about dinosaurs makes sense as we don't have a way to verify their soft tissues. But when it comes to AI, there are ways to actually confirm the reliability of responses. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -8 points 1 year ago Maybe don't write an article speculating about something possible being true based on another article that is also speculating about something being possible when it being able to confirm it is possible. Like speculating about dinosaurs makes sense as we don't have a way to verify their soft tissues. But when it comes to AI, there are ways to actually confirm the reliability of responses. permalink fedilink source parent