TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Is ChatGPT a Bit Unsporting?

34 pointsby soopurmanalmost 2 years ago

11 comments

madroxalmost 2 years ago
It&#x27;s been interesting to me how advancement changes outmoded disciplines. The automobile didn&#x27;t get rid of people riding horses, but it changed why people rode horses. Photography changed why people painted. I&#x27;m sure many people called these changes unsporting.<p>Same with automation (and ChatGPT). Automation doesn&#x27;t get rid of hand-crafted things, but it changes the meaning behind them. The market for hand-made goods is alive and well in spite of cheaper automated alternatives. I own a hand made mantle clock and it&#x27;s one of my favorite possessions. I&#x27;m sure human-written material will become more valued when it isn&#x27;t the <i>only</i> means of creation. No discipline truly goes away, but our relationship to it changes.
评论 #37070628 未加载
评论 #37078201 未加载
评论 #37074577 未加载
评论 #37070277 未加载
version_fivealmost 2 years ago
ChatGPT is really good and it also isnt. It can do all the things mentioned - rephrase in different styles, etc, but it&#x27;s still generally shallow, even if stylistically correct, and leans hard towards the high school essay version of things. It doesn&#x27;t really replace good writing.<p>Re: being sporting, it reminds me of wikipedia or similar internet facts. You know when you want to discuss something (I wonder why X) and somebody jumps into the internet and reads off the first google hit and ruins the discussion. The point was some light intellectual stimulation which was destroyed by just spitting out some partial &quot;fact&quot; copied from the internet. Writing with llms is similar.
评论 #37070082 未加载
评论 #37070172 未加载
评论 #37070404 未加载
kzrdudealmost 2 years ago
What #1 Magnus Carlsen said about how it feels to play against a computer program, that &quot;it is like being outplayed by an idiot.&quot;
评论 #37070138 未加载
评论 #37070087 未加载
crooked-valmost 2 years ago
The easiest way to keep ChatGPT out: use material that has any kind of sex or violence in it. Any ChatGPT processing will rapidly descend into moralizing nonsense.
评论 #37070024 未加载
评论 #37069994 未加载
Upvoter33almost 2 years ago
&quot;But few are now impressed by a computer&#x27;s chess play.&quot;<p>This is quite wrong - computer chess has 100% come up with interesting ideas, ones that GMs now use. I often think of the human&#x2F;AI chess interaction as a model for broader AI use, where humans use very sophisticated tools to become better at what they&#x27;re doing.
评论 #37070375 未加载
评论 #37070221 未加载
评论 #37070189 未加载
op00toalmost 2 years ago
This strikes me as a bit elitist. Why not give the masses the same writing skills as a first year university student?
评论 #37070091 未加载
评论 #37072228 未加载
评论 #37071023 未加载
GuB-42almost 2 years ago
I&#x27;d say the difference is that game AI (chess AI here) is competitive. Its goal is to defeat an opponent in a zero-sum game, it has no other use, except maybe indirectly if techniques developed while making the engine have applications elsewhere.<p>ChatGPT is different. It can be used to compete against humans in a game, for example by writing an essay for you and try for the best score. Grading is a form of competition. And sure enough, it is &quot;unsporting&quot; to use ChatGPT.<p>But not all writing is a competition. In fact most of it isn&#x27;t. For example let&#x27;s say you are using ChatGPT to translate text, one of the things it is good at. You are not trying to compete against a human translator in a translation competition. You are just trying to understand some text, and you probably don&#x27;t have the time and money to hire a professional translator, and the alternative would have been to just not do anything with the original text. You didn&#x27;t beat a human, you did something you couldn&#x27;t do before, a net positive outcome (or maybe net negative if the translation is misleading, but certainly not zero sum).<p>Same thing if, say, you are getting help from ChatGPT writing technical documentation in decent English, because you are a tech guy and not a good English writer. Same thing here, you can&#x27;t afford a professional writer and editor, you are not trying to write a best-seller book, so without ChatGPT, you would have just written the documentation using your poor English, which may have harmed the comprehension of the people reading it. Again, a net positive.<p>There is AI vs human competition, and some people may rightfully or not think their job is going to be replaced by a machine, but it is only a small part of the story. Think about what (good and bad) things simply can&#x27;t exist without ChatGPT in the absolute sense rather than &quot;who is better&quot;.<p>Chess engines will make you play better chess, but what&#x27;s the point? In the end, there is a winner and a loser, and no matter how high the level is, it will always be the case, you can&#x27;t have two winners. That&#x27;s what we have some arbitrary rules like &quot;no engines&quot; when people play against each other, because the absolute level of chess playing means nothing, the only thing that matters is what happens between the two players, it is zero sum.
dragonwriteralmost 2 years ago
&gt; Of all the posts I ignore on social media… the ones I ignore most thoroughly these days, almost with a vengeance, are the results of prompts to AI chatbots. The tell-tale fonts and formats of these posts allow me to spot them instantly…<p>Factually (other than screenshots of the UI of a particular known web frontend), no, “fonts and formats” won’t tell you that at all.<p>&gt; Part of what bugs me about these documents, whether they’re generated in the form of college essays, poems, newspaper articles, or screenplays, is the implication that they’re ingenious, and that the people who ordered them are ingenious by association. But I am underwhelmed by the performances. When you consider that the human race has moved the ball of language down the field for millennia upon millennia using nothing but its throats and tongues and sticks with ink and graphite on their tips, the idea that advanced computer networks are able to kick the ball into the net repeatedly and with little effort, in all kinds of showy ways, isn’t as impressive as it’s made out to be.<p>This criticism seems to be based on the premise that “advanced computer networks” are fundamentally and obviously more advanced than the combination of “throats and tongues and sticks with ink and graphite on their tips” and, implied but unstated, <i>brains</i> that humans are equipped with, such that the former being able to do what has in the past been done by the latter is trivial.<p>It is, essentially, implicitly assuming artificial superintelligence has not only been achieved, but is already widely acknowledged to be achieved, and thus that it is simply trivially obvious and unimpressive that the systems involved should be able to do well at language tasks that humans have done in the past with their less-advanced tools. Otherwise, dismissal on the grounds stated makes no sense at all.<p>And I agree that, yes, if you buy into AI hype <i>much more than even most of the really enthusiastic hypesters themselves propose</i>, yes, all of the accomplishments of modern LLMs would be trivial. But that’s a dismissal of the specific results that requires a ludicrous view of both the factual and widely perceived general capabilities of the involved systems.
评论 #37070759 未加载
评论 #37070351 未加载
raincolealmost 2 years ago
What&#x27;s &quot;AI&quot; and what &quot;impresses people&quot; are always moving goalposts.<p>Is Facebook&#x27;s face recognition AI? Is it impressive? Most people probably say no today.<p>However if you show it to someone from Turing&#x27;s era they&#x27;ll be 99.9% convinced that we implemented AGI or on the brink of it.
ada1981almost 2 years ago
TLDR; author isn’t impressed by things that at one point in the past he was impressed by.<p>FYI; I wasn’t impressed with his essay.
whimsicalismalmost 2 years ago
Another AI putdown article by someone who still holds the stochastic parrot theory (a rapidly dying breed) with some added incorrect statements about chess AI thrown in for color.<p>They’re unimpressed with the language modeling objective, I am unimpressed with the article.