TOS Question: ChatGPT

[areefer01]

I do find it interesting that neither response has any mention of inaccuracies, which is my main problem , and a fair part of this thread. I wonder how many replies it would need 'til it fesses up?

I can see it now. Hobbyist asks Chatgpt. Chatgpt asks perplexity, perplexity asks brave search, brave asks Siri, Siri asks Alexa, Alexa asks copilot, and the cycle continues.

If the hobbyist started with a 20 gallon tank and a book the probability of long term retention or staying power in the hobby would have exceeded 95 percent...

 

[twentyleagues]

Alright, listen up! In this Reef2Reef thread, folks are debating the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to reefing questions. Some are concerned about the potential for misinformation, while others see it as a helpful tool when used with caution. The consensus? ChatGPT can be useful, but always double-check its advice with trusted sources to keep your reef thriving.

Underwhelming. I am so bummed. Maybe I should have used the one @Reefer Matt found that knew me......

 

[mizimmer90]

Alright, listen up! In this Reef2Reef thread, folks are debating the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to reefing questions. Some are concerned about the potential for misinformation, while others see it as a helpful tool when used with caution. The consensus? ChatGPT can be useful, but always double-check its advice with trusted sources to keep your reef thriving.

Underwhelming. I am so bummed. Maybe I should have used the one @Reefer Matt found that knew me......

The quality of the output is definitely dependent on the model used.

I think the app is using GPT-4, but I've played around with the o1 preview and it's a significant improvement. It's much more capable of fine details / annotating data.

At any rate, these summaries reimagined are amazing:

 

[BeanAnimal]

Haha. It’s the unspoken rule of cat ownership: never get up if a cat is resting on you.

He is not resting on you, he is covering his prey and allowing you to be lucky he is not hungry enough to eat you.

 

[Miami Reef]

I agree. ChatGPT 4 is significantly better than the free version.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The quality of the output is definitely dependent on the model used.

I think the app is using GPT-4, but I've played around with the o1 preview and it's a significant improvement. It's much more capable of fine details / annotating data.

At any rate, these summaries reimagined are amazing:

No it just babbles and rambles on a LOT more and is even harder to shut up and keep on context and point and being internet connected pulls in even more ridiculous drivel as fact.

 

[Miami Reef]

He is not resting on you, he is covering his prey and allowing you to be lucky he is not hungry enough to eat you.

OMG. My cat is literally on my lap right now. This is actually insane.

So basically, when I rescued my cat, I had the dream of him resting on my lap while I browsed the web or read a book — it was an expectation that left me disappointed.

It took 2 YEARS, but now he occasionally likes my lap and will now sleep on top of me. This was honestly a dream of mine. Before he would sleep on the foot of the bed or on the cat tree.

So now you understand why I won’t get up if he’s resting on me? It’s all I’ve ever wanted!!

I know I sound insane. I like both cats and dogs BTW. I don’t know why people think you have to choose one?

 

[mizimmer90]

No it just babbles and rambles on a LOT more and is even harder to shut up and keep on context and point and being internet connected pulls in even more ridiculous drivel as fact.

Idk, it's got you on lock lol

 

[Reefer Matt]

Alright, listen up! In this Reef2Reef thread, folks are debating the accuracy of ChatGPT's responses to reefing questions. Some are concerned about the potential for misinformation, while others see it as a helpful tool when used with caution. The consensus? ChatGPT can be useful, but always double-check its advice with trusted sources to keep your reef thriving.

Underwhelming. I am so bummed. Maybe I should have used the one @Reefer Matt found that knew me......

This sums it up for me. This is from the iPhone app.

 

[twentyleagues]

The quality of the output is definitely dependent on the model used.

I think the app is using GPT-4, but I've played around with the o1 preview and it's a significant improvement. It's much more capable of fine details / annotating data.

At any rate, these summaries reimagined are amazing:

OMG that is so great!

 

[twentyleagues]

The quality of the output is definitely dependent on the model used.

I think the app is using GPT-4, but I've played around with the o1 preview and it's a significant improvement. It's much more capable of fine details / annotating data.

At any rate, these summaries reimagined are amazing:

Best one yet!

 

[BeanAnimal]

The quality of the output is definitely dependent on the model used.

I think the app is using GPT-4, but I've played around with the o1 preview and it's a significant improvement. It's much more capable of fine details / annotating data.

At any rate, these summaries reimagined are amazing:

Except it is not a summary and just made up BS. It can’t read threads and even if it tells you that it is summarizing, it is not!!! It is literally making it up as it goes based on a few keywords in the thread title and meta search results on the thread and R2R and reefing in general.

 

[Dan_P]

OMG. My cat is literally on my lap right now. This is actually insane.

So basically, when I rescued my cat, I had the dream of him resting on my lap while I browsed the web or read a book — it was an expectation that left me disappointed.

It took 2 YEARS, but now he occasionally likes my lap and will now sleep on top of me. This was honestly a dream of mine. Before he would sleep on the foot of the bed or on the cat tree.

So now you understand why I won’t get up if he’s resting on me? It’s all I’ve ever wanted!!

I know I sound insane. I like both cats and dogs BTW. I don’t know why people think you have to choose one?

I own both, 4 (little) dogs and 2 cats from a shelter. The cats live on our laps if let them. Ditto for the dogs. They all took different lengths of time to reach tis point.

 

[Dan_P]

No it just babbles and rambles on a LOT more and is even harder to shut up and keep on context and point and being internet connected pulls in even more ridiculous drivel as fact.

So, you are saying it is obtaining the abilities of some humans on social media.

 

[Dan_P]

Except it is not a summary and just made up BS. It can’t read threads and even if it tells you that it is summarizing, it is not!!! It is literally making it up as it goes based on a few keywords in the thread title and meta search results on the thread and R2R and reefing in general.

HaHa, so human-like.

 

[mizimmer90]

Except it is not a summary and just made up BS. It can’t read threads and even if it tells you that it is summarizing, it is not!!! It is literally making it up as it goes based on a few keywords in the thread title and meta search results on the thread and R2R and reefing in general.

Idk, these summaries look pretty good to me, and they do it in style!

Also, LLMs typically use "attention mechanisms", which evaluate every single input word to evaluate every single output word (it's not keywords and titles as you claim). This gives the model a ton of context, and is why it can write themes or callbacks into its output text. I'd be happy to video chat with you at some point to walk you through this stuff!

There's plenty of data out there characterizing performance of the chatGPT models. The newer o1 model is a significant step up in performance, typically outperforming "expert" human level intelligence.

The olde English AI summary really captured my point elegantly with, "[AI] use, like fire, may warm or burn, depending on the users intent." These are tools, which are not error proof, but can be immensely powerful when used correctly. Table saws have warnings that they may chop off some fingers, but that doesn't mean that when used properly they can't build houses.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Man, you all need to chill for a bit……just a few playing around on here and the servers sucked up so much juice that Puerto Rico went dark! We’ll probably get put on water restrictions just so they can keep the servers cool! Ha

Oh… HNY!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Idk, these summaries look pretty good to me, and they do it in style!

And you are lapping it up like it is as unbiased toward AI as you are

Also, LLMs typically use "attention mechanisms", which evaluate every single input word to evaluate every single output word (it's not keywords and titles as you claim).

I know how LLMs work - and you missed the context of "keywords". The current versions (in most free and even paid forms) can NOT read a "thread" like you posted unless you feed them the full text yourself. Instead they are aware of ReefCentral content that was pulled in on the last data pull, the thread title (that you posted) and whatever else related it knows about Reefing and/or the words in the title -- so it makes up a summary based on that, not what was actually written in the thread.

This gives the model a ton of context, and is why it can write themes or callbacks into its output text. I'd be happy to video chat with you at some point to walk you through this stuff!

You don't need to walk me through anything.

There's plenty of data out there characterizing performance of the chatGPT models. The newer o1 model is a significant step up in performance, typically outperforming "expert" human level intelligence.

Pick the right metrics and a banana can appear smarter than "human level intelligence". There is plenty of data out there showing how often it fails and to what extent and based on the intelligence of the user. You are aware of this though, if you are an LLM researcher. Yes, the breadth of information that it can pull in and reference is astonishing... but ignoring that it jumbles it all together and can't, itself tell you when or where it started hallucinating is scary.

In the kindest manner and as respectfully as can be, I am starting to tire of the back and forth. It is nothing personal, but there is nothing to convince me of. I get it, you think AI LLM is the greatest thing in the universe, I don't. I think it is an extremely flawed and misunderstood piece of software that people are lulled into thinking is smart, sentient and can be conversed with intelligently -- to the point of the latest commercials begging people to befriend it. It is as, or more dangerous than it is good -- because it is almost universally and fully trusted even though it is capable and often blurts out insanely wrong or misleading crap and those driving it have no clue.

 

[mizimmer90]

I know how LLMs work - and you missed the context of "keywords". The current versions (in most free and even paid forms) can NOT read a "thread" like you posted unless you feed them the full text yourself. Instead they are aware of ReefCentral content that was pulled in on the last data pull, the thread title (that you posted) and whatever else related it knows about Reefing and/or the words in the title -- so it makes up a summary based on that, not what was actually written in the thread.

Ummm... it's very clear you don't know how this works lol. I think you're the one hallucinating with your explanations, or at least just trying to guess how it works .

ChatGPT can read any publicly available content, such as the posts in this thread, in their entirety. Thats why we can get full summaries like the ones above. However, the model is prohibited from reproducing that text verbatim for legal reasons. Another limitation is that grabbing all the data in the correct format can be tricky and you may get varying results from different web layouts. Also, I believe chatGPT-4o has a token limit for web plugins at 128,000 (for inputs and outputs) which equates to roughly 96,000 words.

You don't need to walk me through anything.

I thought this forum was all about learning lol. Is there nothing that can be taught to BeanAnimal?

Pick the right metrics and a banana can appear smarter than "human level intelligence". There is plenty of data out there showing how often it fails and to what extent and based on the intelligence of the user. You are aware of this though, if you are an LLM researcher. Yes, the breadth of information that it can pull in and reference is astonishing... but ignoring that it jumbles it all together and can't, itself tell you when or where it started hallucinating is scary.

With all due respect, your data is anecdotal. Thats why analysis on large sets of testing is more informative. Re you rejecting this data, its pretty convenient to find a way throw out any data you dont agree with, without providing a real critique or data of your own lol.

Earlier in this thread, there was an example of a Mn dosing calculation that was incorrect from ChatGPT. There was a typo in the input, i used the fixed prompt with a newer chatGPT and got the right answer.

The point I have made is that everyone needs due diligence. You're a respected member of this community, however, you are saying inaccurate statements with respect to AI (because you're clearly not an expert in this field). I might argue that's worse than an LLM outputting "StRawRRBeRRy" lol

I get it, you think AI LLM is the greatest thing in the universe, I don't. I think it is an extremely flawed and misunderstood piece of software that people are lulled into thinking is smart, sentient and can be conversed with intelligently -- to the point of the latest commercials begging people to befriend it. It is as, or more dangerous than it is good -- because it is almost universally and fully trusted even though it is capable and often blurts out insanely wrong or misleading crap and those driving it have no clue.

I think you're being very dramatic again and trying to misquote me to build a strawman argument haha. Im sure its easier to discredit me if you paint me as as a crazy fanatic; the reality is that Im interested in the potential of a new tool.

Any serious researcher in ML has to be honest with the limitations of models. I am more than willing to laugh at failures as well as marvel in successes. The main point is that this is a tool we can use (or misuse).

I think your resistance to AI is largely uninformed. You haven't discussed the effect of different models, prompts, areas of success or failures, even the distinction between an LLM and an agent. When was the last time you even tried to ask an LLM anything? These models progress so quickly it's impossible to make a blanket statement on how they perform, especially when you're misusing a model that's already 4 generations old.

Your rhetoric makes it clear your don't "want" to like AI. I don't know why, but you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe you are able to summarize this entire thread as an olde English tale better than I can?