Almost as if it was made to simulate human output but without the ability to scrutinize itself.
To be fair most humans don’t scrutinize themselves either.
(Fuck AI though. Planet burning trash)
The number of times I have received an un-proofread two sentence email is too damn high.
And then the follow up email because they didn’t actually finish a complete thought
I do this with texts/DMs, but I’d never do that with an email. I double or triple check everything, make sure my formatting is good, and that the email itself is complete. I’ll DM someone 4 or 5 times in 30 seconds though, it feels like a completely different medium ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh, so my sceptical, uneducated guesses about AI are mostly spot on.
As a computer science experiment, making a program that can beat the Turing test is a monumental step in progress.
However as a productive tool it is useless in practically everything it is implemented on. It is incapable of performing the very basic “Sanity check” that is important in programming.
The Turing test says more about the side administering the test than the side trying to pass it
Just because something can mimic text sufficiently enough to trick someone else doesn’t mean it is capable of anything more than that
We can argue about it’s nuances. same with the Chinese room thought experiment.
However, we can’t deny that it the Turing test, is no longer a thought exercise but a real test that can be passed under parameters most people would consider fair.
I thought a computer passing the Turing test would have more fanfare, about the morality if that problem, because the usual conclusion of that thought experiment was “if you cant tell the difference, is there one?”, but now it has become “Shove it everywhere!!!”.
Oh, I just realized that the whole ai bubble is just the whole “everything is a dildo if you are brave enough.”
AI doesn’t generate its own code, humans using AI generate code. If a person uses AI to generate code and doesn’t know good practices then of course the code is going to be worse.
