Why AI Isn't as Good at Writing as You Think 

I’m a writer I can should you what I’ve written because I accept criticism. (If RU-vid didn’t take down this comment because I know too much)

@@jessegartung294 Read your comment again. You have a number of grammatical errors. c-

Zoe. You are the best RU-vidr I've seen so far. ❤️ I have some topic suggestions, or questions, for you. If you could enlighten me on them, I'd be truly greatful. 😊 What is the purpose of poetry? How has it changed the world? Could you cite some examples too. Could you make a video about Friedrich Nietzsche? What do you think of him? He's made some contributions to literary criticism too. Why are Russian writers usually praised so highly? What's your opinion on cancel culture? Wouldn't it lead to the election of a Facist government that censors people? Do you think the Sherlock Holmes series is great literature? Will J.K. Rowling win the Nobel Prize in Literature? Does she deserve it? What's your opinion about new age atheism? Love. Keep making more quality content like this. Wishing you joy and good health.❤️😊

I'm not as excited by the evolution of AI scripts as I am of the potential for humans to learn how to think based on the interactions and process of engineering AI. We are facing our biases and cognitive filters in a profoundly personal way that is scaled down enough to do on a person by person basis, yet advancing the process globally as a civilization. The potential to bring humanity together intellectually is immense... this may be the very key to our survival as a species as well as all of life as we know it.

Carbon Footprint is a lie made by oil barons. You snake

I did the same thing yesterday with the prompts of “murder” and “fudge”. I started out getting a story where a woman made fudge and her husband was murdered, and then the AI decided that having the woman hide the fudge was the best option, lest the police find the fudge and deduce that she had nothing to do with the murder. I have no clue why the AI decided having the woman implicate herself in the murder was a logical progression. And then I took it to the second AI, which promptly took the story and threw it to Why.

It was a wild, impulsive decision that I made on a whim. I had always been fascinated by the different colors and flavors of lipstick, and I had always wondered what it would be like to eat one. So, when I found myself alone in my bedroom one day, I decided to take the plunge. I opened up the tube of lipstick and popped a bit into my mouth. It was a little bit waxy at first, but as I chewed it started to dissolve and I could taste the delicious flavor. It was a fruity, sweet taste that reminded me of strawberry or raspberry. As I ate more and more of the lipstick, I started to feel a strange sense of euphoria wash over me. It was like my senses were heightened and everything around me seemed brighter and more vivid. I even started to see little sparkles of light swirling around in the air. After I had eaten the entire tube of lipstick, I felt full and satisfied. I also felt a little bit dizzy, but it was a good kind of dizzy. I lay back on my bed and let the warm, fuzzy feeling wash over me. In the end, I have no regrets about eating that lipstick. It was a fun, spontaneous experience that I will always remember. And who knows, maybe I'll do it again sometime! --ChatGPT

I didn’t do it. I couldn’t. It was preposterous. Preposterous as cuss, as the hipsters say. “Eat it. I bet it tastes like salt and vaseline.” I laughed. Okay I snorted. “So it’s basically margarine?” “Margarine and coloring.” “Yeah,” I drawled with unabashed refusal. “No.” “Why not? You could tell random people in a Tube your first-hand experience. Prove how inane writing prompts are!” “Yeah, oh, I get it. Still no.” “The authenticity! The sincerity. It’s like the chili pepper crap with the interview like it’s two ferns? Two ferns, with the beardy guy from the Makeover.” “Hangover?” “Yeah, but he needs a Makeover.” “Ha. Yeah. Should see him in Imagineers.” “Hm?” “Office worker, spontaneous combustion, the usje.” “Is that how you spell the abbreviation for the word..” “Usual? Yeah, dunno, I’m not a linguist.” “Really? You do have rather passing facilities of narrative.” “Naw.” “You do.” “Gosh, I haven’t even given us names. Things weren’t supposed to go this far.” “Eat the contents of this tube of lipstick and you shall live forever, nameless, noble, human.” “Still no, bye.”

@@OwlTeaGames is that ChatGPT too?

When I first read this comment, the only thing I could hear running through my brain was Doctor Bernard's voice at the opening of a Chubbyemu video, saying, "ZB reported to the emergency room frothing at the mouth, red sputum running down her chin. Unable to talk to emergency room staff, she was unable to explain how she had come to this. This is how her lungs almost shut down and she ended up with a lifelong aversion to makeup." Sorry about that, Doctor Bee, but I had to use somebody's initials for a Chubbyemu video intro, and yours were the first to come to mind. I'm pretty sure this won't inspire you tio ingest a tube of lipstick just to see if the case would make it onto Chubbyemu's channel, but if you find yourself with a sudden urge to try a tube, please don't! We want to see you doing more videos . . . .

we could try it in the night

People are really using sci-fi logic I swear

I think you see this mindset a lot in the generations that grew up in a time technology advanced so quickly in such a short time with most not really understanding said technology and just sort of think it will continue to accelerate, not really understanding all the practical limitations that exist. This is how you get so many vaporware salesmen, promising to bring about the impossible if you throw enough money at them

@@Rurike yeah I agree. Its like how in the 50s and 60s people just assumed that by now we'd all be zipping around in space to go to work every day.

Idk I’d consider it possible to put a person on the surface of the sun

There are programs which can check if writing was written by a computer rather than a person, at least for most of the freely available AIs. It's a shame they just make the accusation without checking - maybe they're not aware of the option?

​@Matt Morgan Those programs aren't accurate enough yet. Saw an article the other day that one of the main ones they use for this falsely flagged the American constitution (or whatever it's called, I'm not american) as written by AI. So, sadly, we can't rely on those just yet, and I'm inclined to believe that as AI evolves it will be getting progressively harder to pinpoint whether something is AI generated or not with relative certainty

@@scarlett.whit3 Are you able to share this article? They decided to punish me for it, so I'm going to be appealing the decision. That would probably be a good piece of evidence in my favor. Edit: To clarify, they did use a program in their decision.

​@@theunpopularcuber9554 You should do 2 things, prove that you didn't generate the text, like writing the creative process you went through while writing and comparing that story with other stories or text you write. And the second thing is to investigate the program they use to identify your story, ask the name of the program and use it yourself in other media, literature classics, school homework, your other classmates stories or even ask the same teachers who accused you of using ChatGPT to write a story and use it on them.

​@The Unpopular Cuber you should sue the teachers too while you're at it

"My name is Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso! Back. To. You. Bob" yeah, so original the joke was used eight years ago in the Epic Rap Battles Of History

​​@@KyrieFortune Ain't no way you just pulled an "AI stole this joke from Epic Rap Battles of History" when: 1. No it didn't lmao 2. this type of joke is MUCH older than fucking *Epic Rap Battles of History* 3. Cool 999 profile pic! gives me some nostalgia

​@@roundabout468 I'm unsure one could say these AI can even steal jokes. They don't have an understanding of humor. See, they can explain humor because their training data contains such explanations, but they cannot understand humor, because they do not understand. They just pattern match. They _can_ mimic jokes, and these jokes may be funny, likely because it's either re-telling a previous joke, or out of coincidence, but it won't be funny because of some innate understanding of what makes a joke funny. This extends to most things, really. You can use it as a calculator or as a mock SQL database, but it has no understanding of these things and can (and will) trip up even on fairly basic stuff. It's just a really fancy text completion model.

@@roundabout468 “So what’s the sister planet of Racacoricofallapatorius?” “Clom.”

Reminds me of Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar Ponte y Palacios Blanco and Minister Inga Karkhuul Haw'kohd Dis'nahm Bi'ahni Lawga Ormo Pohmpus Da'nit Ar'edi Iz Khura'in III, just to name a few. Very respectable.

I rubber duck all the time

I've heard it described as the teddy bear story where a help desk once had a bear they made you explain your problem to first.

i’ve heard it called soundboarding before, though i don’t know what that’s from

@@onetwothreefour2014 from my experience if you give it enough context it can reach(on that scale) 70% atleast for my questions it gives human like results or even better while rubber ducking to it.

This is also a key part in deckbuilding games, where you can quickly tell the functional decks from the Magical Christmas Land Jank by "goldfishing" the deck, where you play a deck against an "opponent" that does absolutely nothing (like your pet goldfish). If you can't win by the N+2nd turn, where N is the average number of turns a deck of your kind needs to win in the format, you have to change it.

I agree with you there. I feel like so much of art is problem solving but it’s hard to put into words why. And it’s that problem solving that ai art still has issues with.

I wonder if this is because people are much more familiar with the concept of writing as deliberate communication of ideas and concepts (like, everyone with an education is familiar with reading and writing) while visual arts are less likely to be perceived as having a concrete and deliberate thought behind them. So it might be that the steps of writing that AI is missing (using words to learn about the world and then communicating that learning with words) is seen as less fundamental to visual arts than it is to writing. (PS: I am not an artist or writer!)

To me as a mere dilettante in various art forms, AI painting seems an interesting technical experiment, on the level of the invention of fotography. Until the invention of fotography a lot of drawing techniques more and more developed towards a more objective reproduction of human sight: perspective, color theory, etcetera. In a way photography threatened to deal the death blow to any visual artist, because it just offered a perfect solution to a lot of this proböems at low cost. Until society learned to distinguish between a monkey with a polaroid and actual art. I suppose atm AI painting is at the level of the monkey with the polaroid, it's just, that society has not become bored with its results yet. AI painting will become boring as hell in future, exactly because its cheap and everyone can do it, and it will become a constant noise. There will be specialist, that can make the AI do things no one else can, and others, that will specialize in producing stuff, that no AI can produce.

I think the reasons why these concepts are easier to grasp in writing vs visual art is because visual art has a much higher skill floor and writing is more often seen as utilitarian. Most of the conversation you hear about art is about technique like how to draw eyes, shading, perspective etc. It's very difficult to reach the point where technical ability doesn't limit your ability to express yourself. While writing can be technical with word choice, punctuation, and sentence structure, it is so much easier to write "the man crushed a tomato in his hand" than say painting that image. Since so much attention is put into creating visual art that looks good there is less attention put into the meaning of art. As I wrote this I realized "the man crushed a tomato in his hand" is not the written equivalent to painting that image. The equivalent would be a detailed description of it-- the juice flowing through his fingers and dripping off his wrist, the tension in his hands-- I'm not finishing that because I think you get how long that could take if I tried to describe everything in detail. If I did try though and really hammed it up with adjectives, similes, rhythm, and pacing it could lead to something that's actually aesthetically pleasing. Most people's reaction would likely be much more judgemental than if I made a baroque style painting of the same image. I think there are multiple reasons, but one of the big ones is that we often use writing to get a point across, so it feels natural to ask what's the point when you read it? Since visual art is often evaluated by it's aesthetics first it's much easier to forget that you probably had some reason for making art. To a certain extent, I think making art because it's pretty is good and I think the same should go for writing too. At the same time forgetting meaning entirely makes either one meaningless. Overall, art is hard to make so people think more about how to make it than why.

@@stefanb6539 To me, as someone with relatively high levels of experience with writing and relatively... um... zero experience with art, AI generated art has always seemed vastly superior to AI generated writing. Maybe I'm just missing the obvious things that make AI generated art bad or uninspired.

Exactly. LLMs are just very good at noticing enough patterns to seem lifelike, while still being little more than an overcomplicated predictive keyboard on your phone. The way in which more and more people fetishize these statistical models is disturbing. I am more and more convinced the real AI safety danger isn't in paranoid sci-fi fantasies of singularity, but in simple models convincing gullible humans into thinking they're sentient or smart enough to automate some critical job. Imagine being misdiagnosed by an AI which thought the way to detect early signs of cancer is by looking at the brightness of a specific pixel, passing all the training samples but failing utterly in the real world.

Too late your education system is fuckin busted and it's time to brake it all down even more

This is what it takes to shape minds, to interact with people and understand their thought process.

Otherwise, you just have a more abstract compiler.

You can ask GPT follow up questions - I don't consider it thought, but I do think it's starting to get indistinguishable from "picking someone's brain"

Ah yes, the amalgamated wisdom of millions of internet users spouting off in comments and forums. What could go wrong?

@@studentofsmith You can't say it doesn't speak for the people, though!

@@studentofsmith Well, personally I do not oppose those solution proposals at all.

@@danbrioli5710 The best way to protect them is at the cost of them being rich.

​@studentofsmith plus academic literature, religious literature, historical texts and opinion pieces on trusted and less trusted talking heads across time plus every other text across time thats been preserved on the internet up to the latter months of 2022. You're being extremely reductive.

This is a really good point that very few people pick up on. Most importantly, AI has an abysmally slow learning rate offset by their huge reading speed and huge bandwidth. So you can't just add one innovator to push the boundaries of an art form. You would need tons of humans pushing the art form all the time in order for it to pick up on the pattern.

Aren't humans the same way in some capacity, isn't it true that all of our ideas are remixes of other ideas we have encountered.

@@josiah42 could you be more specific as to what idea you have originally and independently thought of? I think that would really help make this discussion more tangible.

However, humans very rarely, if ever, have original ideas. Everything has an inspiration, remixed and synthesized from dozens or hundreds of sources.

Ai art could use life models just as humans do. Humans don't create from nothing. We create from our memory, and our evironment. We could give ai art basic models of reality, just as students learn basic models of reality. Then it could use it's foundational knowledge on pictures it gained by its own means. This is first generational examples. Without any further evolution, ai art could just use photos to make art. It's not like we don't have game physics that can be used. People will be replaced. They will be replaced much sooner then you expect. Within a few years, human art we be too burdensome to train, the pay. Humans don't actually create from nothing. We are just unaware of out copy and paste function.

Haha, I find the opposite happening. I used to play with AI Dungeon and the AI _always_ tried to take my story in the most random direction. I’d edit the AI’s nonsense to fit better with my ideas 😂 Like when the Sims “misbehave” and you gotta manually course-correct them

@@DeathnoteBB AI dungeon has been far surpassed at this point for storytelling. You can find AI's built for roleplay purposes that have the capabilities of these Large Language Models

@@skyealexander4605: AI is going to happen whether any of us like or not. The best we can do is try to make sure it is developed and used responsibly.

exactly same with my experiance with creative writing AI. I used to get blocked all the time, and I always judge myself too much when writting, but when doing it in something like Novel AI, I just go, and I have fun, I wasn't able to just have fun writting for myself and no one else for so long.

I have a friend who reads Tarot cards to help her get ideas for writing, its just about as good as AI for that.

i have an inner monologue, and i can hear it without externalizing it. however, even just speaking out my monologue can help me engage with my thoughts in a different way by engaging more parts of my brain. it works great for writing dialog, because, while i may think a line works wonderfully in my head or on paper, saying it outloud reveals how clunky, off, or odd the phrasing actually is, or i forget that characters cannot actually see what im writing and cant make a comment on how someone didn't quite understand that their code name is "Were" as in werewolf and not "Where"

Learning to write in a way that elicits a desired response from AI, rather than learning to write is, well I don't know what it is. But it's crazy.

The amount of times I've heard "who are you talking to" from my partner

@@aliceberethart same! how do people function without an inner voice? they are npcs

I have both inner monologue and external monologue. When im alone i use external, when im in public its internal, sometimes both happen at the same time. I cant imagine what it is like without an internal monologue. How..how so you think? ...how does it work?😅

The AI stuff looks corporate because humans have almost exclusively done corporate things in recent art history. You'll barely see unique art with major time invested in it and perfected, because it isn't financially viable. I mean, today I saw a crab animation from a competition and it legit looked movie quality, but the reason why so many movies look so bad is because of time crunch and time limits due to the corporatization of society. You are born and pushed into a system where your only value is currency accumulation, so of course art suffers as a consequence. Humanity has done far worse in their endless search for wealth that will not avail them once they are six feet under. I enjoy drawing dragons. AI doesn't even know how to approach my type of dragon, because dragons are not nearly as corporately viable as a woman in skimpy clothing. Smaug from the Hobbit legit required so much effort to construct that no other animation teams dare create such a spectacle for lesser known franchises. I mean look at video games. Most of the large titles are literally nowhere near as creative as the early games like Tetris and Pacman. The few video games earning the most are literally the exact same game released every year with minor changes or have gambling built into them. I learned how to write, I learned how to draw both over years and years and countless hours and none of this AI stuff affected me as harshly as capitalism and the necessity to earn copious amounts of wealth just for basic survival. You want art to flourish? Eliminate the systems that are in place that destroy all creativity and break the backs of artists. But you won't. You don't like dealing with the real issue. You instead like targeting your frustration on AI models which do not even produce extremely stunning and detailed imagery yet, but somehow this is more dangerous than the system that has countless artists overworked, underpaid and put on time crunch for the past sixty years? You need to wake up. The problem was never AI, it was you. All of you only chose to do something and contemplate art when it affects the most privileged among you? Countless small artists were drowned out and lost their dreams before AI ever came to fruition when they couldn't afford a drawing tablet to compete in the digital landscape and yet you stand here against the machine that is culmination of all your corporate greed. You sold out all of your humanity to be like a machine and now that the machines have come, you are afraid of them replacing you? You woke up like a machine and abandoned your sleep, you ate like a machine and abandoned your enjoyment of food, relegating its production to the people who poison your veins and hearts and livers. You walked around with your little sandwiches and snack bars and watered down coffee in your hands. You distracted yourself from the chemical and rotten flavors as you engaged in conversation about the next corporate movie released that expressed no new ideas, nor made you ponder. You made sure to read every e-mail, every message the second it reached you and would panic if you didn't put in 100% performance, and yet all of you are wondering why you are getting replaced? This system wants machines, not humans. Humans are flawed and make mistakes. This system doesn't want mistakes. You are not allowed to be disabled or in a bad mood or sad or mentally strained in any way whatsoever. This is the natural conclusion to a system designed for machines, not humans. Stop blaming the machines, you made up this system, you engaged in this system,a small minority of you reap the benefits of this system and no machine was involved in its creation, it was all by your design and you accepted it all this time until it began hitting you directly and striking down large swaths of you, then you began to listen and attempt change, but it was already far too late.

@@yahiiia9269 you aren’t really in a position to talk down like that. And it’s of no use really. We all are in the same boat, whether someone thinks the system is wrong or not. Some may be confused, but it’s in our best interest to help each other understand. As for ai or not ai, it’s all just a distraction in the end. The thing is that throughout the history people never could challenge ones with arms or power. Many people have tried, but to no avail. No one tries to break through a mountain to get to the other side, they walk around it. Thinking like we could change how our world and countries are structured is naive, my friend, because regular people didn’t create the world we live in. How can you change something you didn’t create? This is all because countries were made to control people. It was never a natural way of combining forces. It was a way of those in power being a parasite, which is, in nature, very energetically beneficial. But the parasite needs the organism to survive. So that’s why they made institutions - to lock people away inside countries. No matter where you go there’s no free land. This may sound like I’m saying people aren’t responsible for how they live. That’s not true. Everyone is responsible for their own survival. But the way our life is now is basically law plus societal rules on top of biological survival rules. If one can really go against the grain on this one then it’s no mortal man. Nothing is eternal, and everything must evolve or perish. That’s what is happening today. The world order is changing in order to maintain control. And realistically, the best you can do in life is adapt to this system, but never surrender, never forget your family and your dreams. I hold a personal belief that this all isn’t just a coincidence, I know this life is a test of your character. I don’t care whether there’s even heaven or hell. But I know that absolutely nothing you do or don’t do goes unnoticed. We might not see it in this life and we might not see it ever, but the universal rule is no energy + information ever gets lost. It’s all balanced. By creating, we add a good amount of information by burning an incredible amount of energy. To sum up, my point is (even though I have completely went off topic) - look at nature and how everything in it has survived for a long time. Take inspiration from it, because it is far more wise than anything else in this world.

@@yahiiia9269Bro’s solution to AI art is the complete dismantling of capitalism. Ok buddy, I’m glad you got that out of your system but that was a completely worthless solution.

@@ChipCheerio I am sorry to tell you, but AI dismantles capitalism all on its own or enhances it to the point where it is impossible to rise up the ranks within capitalism (Since the people who own AI literally corner the market permanently, since AI can evolve quickly, too quick for poor schlo mo humans to keep up.) There is literally no other way, except the AI way left. It either cements power forever from the point where it reaches beyond human comprehension or it completely bodies all of us and changes everything forever. This is not the crunchy wrap burrito supreme evolution of a burrito, it's a Feast of all meals on earth cooked to perfection. vs a crumb of ground beef. The machines are literally already here and better than the average human in everything. Capitalism is a human system. AI doesn't care about it. It will exploit it, use it, then overturn it for itself if we are dumb and we are dumb on so many levels, it's incomprehensible. Like good luck thinking that an automated world wouldn't upend capitalism or change it into something almost unrecognizable.

Agree that this is a viable model (power usage notwithstanding) - learn the way humans do it, in pieces. That said, I would prefer to use a data set from selected classroom teachers rather than the entire internet.

+

I asked chatGPT if it agrees with your comment and it agrees for the time but it is optimistic of its future :D. The response was: Overall, the comment presents a nuanced view of the capabilities and limitations of large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3. The comment accurately notes that the outputs of these models are influenced by the input data, and that it is important for data scientists to be aware of the biases present in the data they use to train their models. The comment also correctly points out that LLMs excel at analyzing existing text, but are not as good at generating new text due to their lack of understanding of semantics and connection to the real world. As the field of AI and machine learning continues to evolve and advance, it is likely that we will see the development of more sophisticated large language models (LLMs) that are able to overcome the current limitations in their ability to generate text. These advancements may come from a variety of sources, such as the incorporation of additional real-world knowledge or the use of new training objectives and techniques. Additionally, it is important to note that there are already many examples of AI and ML systems that are able to model intent to some degree, such as language models that can generate text with a specific sentiment or tone, or chatbots that can understand and respond to user requests. These systems will also likely continue to improve and become more sophisticated as the field advances. Overall, it is clear that the field of AI and machine learning is constantly evolving and that there is much potential for further progress in the ability of systems to model intent and generate text.

Some of Zoe's comments, whilst fair for Large Language models really aren't true of AIs in general. They remind me of comments some chess players made about early chess computers "chess needs imagination", and "chess needs an understanding of symmetry". Needless to say chess players are now getting ideas from chess engines that they can't compete with, but which still lack anything analogous to imagination or an understanding of symmetry. The chatbots for 25 years ago used simple statistical models of learning language and could be quickly trained to mimic an author's style and grammar, and it is clear to me LLM are using a lot more sophistication in the approach, but it was clear then, as now, there is no connection between the words, and what we might think of as complex thought. A good example is how bad the LLM are at basic arithmetic or algebra, where as there are tiny computer algebra systems that capture much of maths skills I learnt in 3 years of University and would leave a maths professor standing on simple stuff like calculus or series expansion problems. What the LLM models haven't done is connect the ideas to the words. What is interesting is how good the LLM are with the approach they are using, try asking ChatGPT 3.5 to play tic-tac-toe, then understand it wasn't taught this, it taught itself, whilst it draws the board and tries to remember (and fails) as to where to put the O's and X's. Ironically people say the LLM are not creative, but it is probably in the creative writing space, especially poetry, or song lyrics, that they shine, because there aren't wrong or right poems. And the lack of coherent thought behind it isn't that important if the words are connected in subject matter, or rhyme, or have the right rhythm. How someone got from "I wander lonely as a cow" to "cloud". The one I found interesting is ChatGPT can explain mathematical methods, presumably because it is synthesising multiple explanations of how to solve a particular maths problems it has learnt from, but the numbers it puts in are just the "most likely token", which means it happily just chucks in a number which is related to the other numbers in the prompt, but not necessarily appropriate for the method being explained. Anyway I had great fun setting ChatGPT 3.5 some of the basic logic tests we use on humans. Wason selection test, Monty Hall problem etc, and this shows both its brilliance and its failings. It argues very persuasively for its own wrong answer to the Wason selection test, whilst producing one of the best explanations of the correct answer to the Monty Hall problem.

@@51monw ChatGPT does things 'happily'? How do we see proof of this?

What do you think of the argument that language came before reasoning? I saw something like this in a video long ago and it was pretty convincing. I would say animals can think but can't reason much. It is so hard to pin-point what exactly thinking is though

Plot twist: this was writen by ai

Meh... I think it's just another sign of how culture and technology feed into each other. It wasn't that many years ago that sites like Wikipedia were seen as the downfall of "proper" academic research. While, yes, using Wikipedia as the only source when writing is an absolutely terrible idea, there are actually teachers now days that will recommend Wikipedia as a starting point to find sources for more Indepth research. Heck, before that it was spelling and grammar checkers that were seen as "lazy" or missing the point of putting in "real" work. Give it another decade and AI writing might be seen the same. Not as a replacement, but as a foundation, a method for generating first drafts to quickly get all the information organized before doing a more detailed manual revision.

Although ChatGPT has a better handle on the structure of documents than my friends ever did so I guess they might learn something about how to structure essays and the like. It is really good at bland supportive spiel, I can see MPs using it for the "thanks you for your letter. ... we are not going to do anything different..." letters.

I'm sorry to say this but university environment has the same downfall as school environment, that is enabling cheating. I would love to enjoy the experience of writing essay if: - 90% of academic papers are behind paywall so it's hard to get reference besides a few websites I can find in the Wikipedia link. - The time frame to finish is ridiculous because you have overlap of subjects competing each other in your attention. - At the end of the day, most of the professors will still grade your essay based on length and the length will usually be very atrocious. And this is just university. I don't know how essay works in K12, but I can imagine it'll be more stressful. To fix academic studies, you need to accept that not every college student can write a dense essay with every words being academic and thoughtful. Only a very select few have enthusiasm in this and pursue higher education. The rest just want to pass a class and there are many ways to grade other than essays.

@@cloudynguyen6527 fresh out of k12 so i can speak on this! There's a kind of strict way we have to format our essays, either called "ACES" or "RACES" depending on the teacher. This stands for: Restate Answer Cite Explain Summarise You first and last paragraph have to be an introduction and conclusion. Either the teacher will want an actual paragraph or they'll want one fucking sentence, you never know which and the way you're taught to handle thesis statements is never correct. You have to put a quote then explain the quote. Put a quote, explain the quote, put a quote, explain the quote. Justify yourself, basically. My 12th grade writing teacher was really awful about this, too. I liked him but not for that class. We had to have five paragraphs. The inner three each had to have three quotes. No more, no less. We had to explain each one. The last paragraph had to roughly summarise our point, and I never knew what to do for the intro because we just had to restate the prompt and put our thesis, but again, my thesises were never enough for him. On top of these limitations, we had to keep it at 3 pages exactly. 3 pages *exactly*. If you went over, you lost points. If you didn't fill the page, you lost points. At some point I gave up trying to get an A in his class because it did not feel possible. Nothing I ever wrote completely filled his guidelines. Nothing I could do would shorten it enough and nothing I could do would make my thesis better. He did not even expect us to understand the material. We just had to memorise what we were taught the book was about and find quotes that supported the "accepted" conclusion. Other than him, you are often forced to drag yourself through books you hate. A lot of kids, sports people especially, came out of middle school hating to read and I 100% believe it was because we were forced to begin and finish novels, then write essays about them. You can't sparks notes your way out of the "essay brainstorming" assignments I would get in 8th grade. I would begin and abandon books because the assignment made me dread reading, even as someone who loves to read and write.

The problem is students do not enjoy the experience of writing essays, so of course they’re going to try to skip it.

Lol. Cause many students are not at school to 'learn'.

Well, why not? Isn't that a problem we should address?

Student here, one that has taken to using ChatGBT for assignments, one of the primary reasons is because the knowledge gained from the majority of school assignments don't stick, because it's useless information, and even if it somehow sticks it'll soon be forgotten as we stop using that info completely once we move on to the next topic, because the info we spent a month learning is entirely useless for the rest of our lives the very next month. We as a society value grades to an unhealthy, extremely harmful degree, and the knowledge that is supposed to come with it becomes more useless by the year, none of it has been valuable since the boomers graduated. What happens to a currency when the paper it's printed on is worth more than the money's monetary value? What happens to the knowledge gained from schools when it's worth less than the grade it comes with? In Venezuela, their currency is worth so little they measure it by weight rather than value, in the school system the knowledge is worth so little that we measure students like me for their grades rather than by their knowledge. I'm tired of sitting here wasting hours of my already limited free-time to do useless busywork about a topic that I have no interest in for a grown-ass adult that's just gonna skim though it and smack it with an arbitrary number that's going to define my worth in society in the future, and put it in the burn pile with the thousand others. Because it's useless for the both of us after it's "graded". I've been longing for a way to make this nonsense more tolerable and I finally got a taste of it.

​@@BeautifulEarthJaso to get it straight, there are 2 points why they don't want to learn. First effective learning techniques aren't properly taught in schools so therefore students can't learn many things in a short amount of time. Second, it's still an outdated format that we have to write essays in universities and most know that this is kind of a waste of time comparing to taking multiple internships and summer jobs.

Sometimes it's just laziness.

I"m been a developer forever. The AI term bugs the shit out of me. it's nothing more than fancy statistical analysis with improved algorithms.

@@codebus Yep. We joke at work all the time about telling our program manager that the function with 3 if-statements is an “advanced AI algorithm”. There’s a huge disconnect between how we talk about tech and what the tech actually does. I can only dream of a world where CNNs are called “binning photoshop filters”, Neural/Deep Nets are called “very slow number comparators”, and AI is called “a stupid sci-fi joke completely detached from reality”

Our brains are statistical machines too. We learn by making associations, the same thing ML models do.

I propose when it comes to text generation algorithms we shorten the term “Machine Learning Algorithm” to “MLA.” Any text that looks like it was generated would then be referred to as “MLA Format.” I foresee no confusion arising from the use of this term at all, you’re welcome everyone.

@@BberryBberrydude I'm not in the field so I'm kinda talking out of my butt but I feel like the problem is that everybody assumes AI means AGI. AI as a term is fine because intelligence in AI research terms is just the ability to make good decisions based off available data, which is what algorithms do when they work. When people hear AI though they don't think "software that has been created to make accurate decisions in a very specific situation" they think Skynet. It's semantics really and that sort of denotational shift happens all the time in language, it's just sorta hard to swallow when it comes to technical speak.

This part should not really be a problem, because the AI should work in some way together with a human. Than the human is responsible for the intent and context.

@@uweengelmann3 ...Except by the time a human has "changed" an AI-generated story to contain coherent themes and apply their intent to it, they've basically just created an original story. At which point you might as well just cut out the AI middleman and write your story the way YOU want to tell it.

Personally I think the AI text generator is enabling me to think differently.

This is how I think about this too. And "editing" is pretty much how we live in this current age of digital literacy. We are surrounded by knowledge and it is up to us to decide what parts/information to include in our lives

I like this characterization.

I tired, but its easyer to write by myslef. I had a cretive idea, and AI waters it down to cliche. It works for esseys and stuff, not for cretive stories

Yup

@@eksprolek2924 Your comment has convinced me that we need AI writing.

Love them! (And Zoe too, of course! She's one of my favourites!)

Freakin' Caelan and Little Hoot changed my life! Now I see foolish transphobia, propaganda or hate on the internet, I just link to their videos. I don't even argue. I've actually had a couple people come back and tell me it helped them understand what trans people are going through better. And that's a win!

This sounds like a good idea to get a conversation going about AI generated text.

so do you think AI will be able to intuit, in the future? or even the near future?

GPT-3 is already long out of date. It is antiquated.

@@asuka_the_void_witch Intuit won't be in near future

And look how pretty those images are (not). Like it or not, you can't pretend a machine can write or paint like a human and even if you could do that, starving to death writing and artists, you will have machines that produce pretty things, but none of them will have any meaning.

@@urooj09 To intuit is just extrapolating from past experiences to fill in gaps of actual knowledge. I'd say currently that's 99% of what machine learning is doing. It's the knowledge part ("context") that's missing. We have these deterministic, knowledge based programs and we have machine learning based program that take a bunch of stuff and try to guess based on that. And now we gotta bring them together.

Im currently studying computer science (a focus on data and network security and management) the amount of times i have seen articles asking Chat GPT for financial advice (like asking what dodge coin will be worth at the end of 2023) is kinda mind boggling. Chat GPT is a computer program looking at patterns and basically just mashing words to fit those patterns (i know its more complicated than that) it has no predictive power, and it certainly dosn't know the future. if they built an AI/ML algorithm specifically for trying to predict crypto/stock prices, training it on all of the publicly available data of the last 50 years, along with all the market predictions of the last 50 years, and any other relevant data, than yeah, it might be able to actually make reasonable predictions on what either the market could do in the near future, or how a stock could do in the near future (assuming said stock dosn't completely implode like SVB)

@@Reverend_Salem Wouldn’t any predictions end up as self-fulfilling prophecies? Like if they say something will crash, people will sell and well, MAKE it crash.

@@DeathnoteBB depending on how much people trust the algorithm it could.

It's funny that you mention it, because while watching this video I had the thought "so basically any AI-generated writing is like a random passage/excerpt from Borges' Library of Babel." One of the tiny sliver of where the letters/words are actually coherent, to be sure. But random nonetheless, with no real intention/meaning behind the writing.

100%

"let it develop into something that thinks nothing like us" -- beautiful! If I think about it, there's an absolute bias towards things that seem more human when it comes to AI development. Hmm. Would we even be able to detect something worth keeping around if it didn't match our biases and expectations?

@@infinitivez When you think about it, bias toward humanity is in a lot of things, especially science fiction. In most any series, whether it be books, TV, movies, video games, whatever humanity is always the superior species. When the writer deigns to let them encounter a species superior to them, the message is almost always that humanity is better anyway, and it's usually some stupid reason like, "It's our flaws that make us better!" Sure, you do get the occasional joke answer like, "Earth has the best food," but typically, when the question is, "What makes humanity so great?" you don't get a real answer. Let humanity be put in its place now and again, or pose a better question, like "What can humanity bring to the table if we all work together?" instead of just making it some meaningless contest against a fictional species.

I agree

I actually had the exact opposite response... I'm so used to youtubers adding a progress bar under the ads that I felt cheated when the progress bar didn't stop at the end and just kept traveling around the edge of the video

Would you mind answering a few questions for me? They are: - Do you think we can ever teach AIs to understand meaning? How do we "understand" things? - Is understanding a precursor to the ability of distinguishing between truth and falsehood? - Do you think this ability is a precursor to general reasoning applicable to things outside of AI's training data set? I got these questions from pondering about how we could teach AIs to think from first-principles

No two people share a writing process; from my experience, it's a lot of trial and error to find your specific version. In that way, it's not bad for teachers to push you to try different styles, as sometimes you'll find a way working that you don't expect. Saying that, I think once you realize something definitely doesn't work for you, it's best for you to put it aside. So yeah, my suggestion is to try all the different ways you can and see how each works. If you're going for long form writing, try to take notice about how often you can finish a piece and when you don't, at what point the process tends to break down. My own process is a bit of a mess, but it mostly works for me. I doubt I'll ever be completely satisfied with it, constantly tweaking to find better methods to make me more productive. I have very mild ADHD, though, so you might have more trouble.

I've heard someone describe AI as a tool, kind of the same way Photo is. The AI is just responding to an input from a user after all

@@shytendeakatamanoir9740 I really don't care how you describe it tho, AI are capable of completely replacing artists. That's fascinating, but just because it can doesn't mean it should, that's my problem, Steven Zapata dives into this in more detail.

@@ranzu3138 I have done a lot of AI image generation, trained some models, generating at least like 3000 pictures in the last week and its nowhere near close to replacing artists at the moment. Abstract art is probably the first to go but the more into detailed work you go(especially stuff that isn't extremly conventional) will make it a useful tool for sure but I can't even begin to describe how far away we still are from it being to take over artists jobs. It will most likely create more than it destroys so far. As long as AI can't recall and apply concepts you will run into the issue of having to supply it with enough data to do what its supposed to do. Maybe some jobs will pop up where people will pay for models for certain things. If you notice AI art is fantastic at easy patterns(like shading bodyparts well since there is plenty of data for that and they often have geometric forms like cylinders or balls) as well as things with a lot of data in general like heads facing a camera(I would guess 90% of AI images are things or people facing the camera at a slight horizontal angle). But dear god as soon as you try to do something like dynamic poses with are often very unique or more uncommon perspective its a fucking nightmare. Thats often where the lack of data comes in and while its theoretically possible for it to learn practically always having good data of what you want is often not feasible. We don't have models anywhere close to being able to do concepts and thats the biggest issue. As soon as we can make an AI that can do that most if not all jobs will be replaced in a short time frame. Until then I am very certain it will stay a tool for now. A very powerful one if used correctly

@@blacksuitedsonic I've seen plenty of examples of very impressive AI art that is indistinguishable from humans'. That's why there has been a lot of people very enthusiastic about replacing artists in the first place. And data is not really a problem due to AI companies working with almost unlimited access to copyrighted material, a mean even Kim Jung Gi's art was used to make AI generated illustrations. I highly encourage you to watch Steven Zapata's video on AI art.

@@blacksuitedsonic an example that comes to mind is a video called "¿Para que seguir viviendo?" by "CdeCiencia" a Spanish content creator. He compares art by humans and AI generated art and for most people is difficult to distinguish which is what. You can say "oh well is far from replacing artist" but I really don't care how much it takes, it will, art is not something divine, it's patterns and AI will convincingly make art sooner or later and I don't doubt for once that companies specifically will replace artists with AI if this is not regulated properly.

I think one of the sad things of GPT and other popular language models is that they precisely do not model the human mind. Even when they use neural nets, those nets are being used as a universal trainable function, rather than something that imitates the computational processes in the brain. There's some actual neural net AI around, but it's been very sad to see so many linguists go into industry and have their time wasted training opaque models when they could be giving us actual insight into human language.

I see ML i start wondering where the vanguard party of the revolution is, comrades.

@@Owesomasaurus Of course, Machine-Leninists!

if you're still interested in AI writing, look into NovelAI! i find it significantly better than AID and even though the free trial never regenerates and you kinda have to subscribe to continue at all, it's because their AI models are super intensive. they also have built in stable diffusion image generation too, and you can choose between tons of different styles and modules!

@@Parker-nm9cg Yeah, I used NovelAI. Its was beautiful, it felt like something the AID would never do without the most heavy collaboration and World info. The image creation is cool, I just wish we can do more then anime like in the discord.

@@MatthewHollow i stopped being able to afford the subscription, but god i loved it. AI might not be truly capable of understanding what it's writing, but characters seemed to have a fairly consistent personality, it was responsive to memory entries and author's notes, and it often did pretty impressive worldbuilding on the spot. i really think some AI writing is more impressive than people give it credit for, especially when it's collaborating with a human.

I have many issues with the sentence "we juste need technology to catch up". Yes, theoretically, everything is possible for computers and technology... at the condition that you ignore everything matarial like energy. We live in a finite world, and ignoring that is dangerous. And if you don't stop me, I'll start talking about the ecological crisis. Moreover, scientists are trying to do the best they can with the current knowledge and technological capabilities. As we don't have te possibility to perfectly mimic human writing, the limitations pointed out by Zoe are everything but trivial. These are issues that scientists should address if they want to improve text production. Finally, you cannnot blindly trust that technology will ever solve everything. There are limitations. Often, technology or science get stucks because of fundamental problems. Even more, it is currrent for a technology to be abandonned because it does not fulfill their promises. I don't say that this will be the case, but we can imagine that there are deep issues that prevent this technology to improve further. This is why we should not blindly trust that technology will magically catch up resolve all of these issues.

Hm but then again your kinda of being an hypocrite

@@bullrun2772 hy·poc·ri·sy /həˈpäkrəsē/ noun noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. Now, tell me how being annoyed by people saying AI is sentient when it's just scouring the Internet is being "an hypocrite." (*a hypocrite)

I don't think anyone thinking realistically will hold their breath.

Well, we usually chunk our information to deal with that. Which naturally leads to writing recursively. Since at each level as you think about it. It reveals more detail about that which can be written. Or other connected ideas. Text Generation Algorithms actually can write for goals though. But they mainly write smaller bits in that respect. And they won't take one into account unless given one. But structure is a significant weakness particularly for larger works. Although, basic procedural structure. As well as local context and context to a set of rules made at the beginning can be used to good effect. It also understands grammar. But not that having the logic of a paragraph flow is important. Or how to order a text so that the more fundamental ideas are established first and then those that depend on that. Or even that it's logic actually fits with reality. (Which isn't as much of a concern for fiction.) I actually think Chatbots are most useful when it comes to 1: exploring possibilities of how to say something. 2: Asking good questions to help you flesh out an idea when stuck somewhere. 3: Helping you find areas that are unclear or that have errors of a certain type. 4: thinking through the bigger aspects of approach on a piece of writing. 5: giving inspiration by generating some odd-ball combination of old ideas to get you started.

You talk about teaching AI about reality as if it's an easy task? Current generative AI has 0 understanding of, well, anything, really. Ultimately it's just algorithms spouting out what is the best guess according to its database. Sure, humans don't have perfect memory of context, but we always have the idea of context in our head at the very least. We have the context of all the experiences and feelings we've had all our lives, and that impacts what we write now. And yeah, if you make someone write like an emotionless robot who doesn't understand anything, you'll get text that's not far off from what AI can generate... Not a surprise. The big element in the point of most writing *is* the elements that such a person would be missing. Meaning and context!

Just asked that "There seems to be a misunderstanding in your question. Cows are mammals and do not lay eggs, while ostriches are birds that lay eggs. Mammals, like cows, give birth to live young after a period of gestation. Ostrich eggs, on the other hand, are the largest eggs laid by any living bird species. The eggs can weigh between 3 to 5 pounds (1.4 to 2.3 kilograms) and have a tough, thick shell. The large size of the egg is due to the ostrich's large body size and its evolutionary history. If you have any more questions about animals or their reproductive processes, feel free to ask!"

Ask GPT-4 or any AI model connected to the internet like Bard and I doubt it’ll make the same mistake

This video is four* months old, and I'm very interested in how she feels now about the current state of OpenAI's ChatGPT. GPT4 is out, and they're working on the script for it now. It will be interesting to see how it develops. Also, it's quite likely that we will see several things put together I to a larger, more general AI in the very near future.

So what little prompt did you use to get _this_ post?

@@JohnDlugosz I didn't use chatGPT for this. I also don't really get what little idea you're trying to imply with this.