• Vilian@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    a test for creativity seriously that work? also after scraping the entire of internet of course someone could think that, ask any programmer and they gonna explain that the IA don’t create anything, it can’t even do basic msth because it don’t gave logic in that,maybe one day, but not with chatgpt of today

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, a test for creativity. If you’re going to say something “doesn’t have the power of creativity” then it behooves you to accept the notion that creativity is measurable.

    • boredazfcuk@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      @Vilian @FaceDeer I agree. I’m no programmer but do a fair bit of Linux/powershell/bash scripting. Virtually all the code that ChatGPT gives me is wrong. You tell it the errors, and it gives you a modified script with errors, point out those errors and it’s go back to its first answer. The only thing it is useful for is writing lots of basic code, really quickly. I can just copy/paste then start debugging.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am a programmer and I’ve found ChatGPT to be able to produce plenty of good, useful code. I haven’t encountered the problems you’re describing in correcting its errors, perhaps you’re not prompting it well.

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you’re telling me that the code it generated for me wasn’t good and useful, and that when I told it to correct errors it actually did introduce new errors and restore old ones, contrary to what I just said? Guess all that stuff I got done using its help didn’t actually get done after all and I’m descending ever deeper into a world of delusion, thinking my projects are finished and working when in fact they aren’t.

            Obviously if you’re trying to get it to use APIs from after 2021 that’s not going to work. It also won’t bake you a cake if you ask it to. Use tools for the tasks they’re good for, don’t use them for things you know they can’t do.

            • boredazfcuk@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              @FaceDeer @floofloof @henfredemars @PoisonedPrisonPanda @sab @Vilian the 500 char limit made me pick the first failure that spring to mind. Maybe you forget, but AI wasn’t trained on “good” data. It was trained “all” data and large amounts of that is plain wrong. People with problems pasting blocks of code and responses correcting a single line. ChatGPT isn’t smart enough to merge those into a single block of working code.

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You have to tell ChatGPT that you want good code, then.

                I’m actually serious. If you just ask for something generic, it’ll assume you want something generic. If you ask it for something that’s “high efficiency, well commented and maintainable” then it’s going to know you wanted that and give you something more along those lines. Just like if you asked it for something “that looks crappy and sloppy, like an amateur wrote it.”

                Very often when people complain about ChatGPT’s “style” or say they can immediately spot something that “sounds like” ChatGPT it’s because they’re not giving it good directions. It can’t read your mind. Yet.

                • boredazfcuk@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  @FaceDeer @floofloof @henfredemars @PoisonedPrisonPanda @sab @Vilian nope. I ask for highly precise stuff. When I say, “I’m no coder,” it’s coz I use interpreters and don’t compile “real” code, plus it only accounts for 10% of my day job. ChatGPT maybe useful for Hello World, Towers of Babel or other stuff it scraped from udemy, but when you ask it to assist in automating complex production systems, it really falls down.

                  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Maybe ChatGPT just hates you personally, then.

                    You’re saying “it can’t work for anyone because it doesn’t work for me!” And I’m saying “well, it worked for me, so maybe you’re using it wrong.”

                    You can’t insist it’s not working for me because it did. I’m not disputing that it didn’t work for you, all I can suggest is reading up a bit on prompt engineering to see if you can find out what you’re doing differently.

    • sab@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the key - it does not create, it can only copy. Which is good enough to fool us - there’s enough stuff to copy out there that you can spend your whole life copying other people and nobody will ever notice you’re not actually creating anything new. What’s more, you’ll probably come across as pretty clever. But you’re not creating anything new.

      For me, this poses an existential threat to academia. It might halt development in the field without researchers even noticing: Their words look fine, as if they had thought it through, and they of course read it to make sure it’s logically consistent. However, the creative force is gone. Nothing new will come under the sun - the kind of new thoughts that can only be made by creative humans thinking new thoughts that have never been put on paper before.

      If we give up that, what’s even the point of doing science in the first place.

      • Sinnerman@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a difference between:

        1. Using ChatGPT to help write parts of the text in the same way you’d use a grammar- or spell-checker (e.g. if English isn’t your first language) after you’ve finished the experiments

        2. Using ChatGPT to write a paper without even doing any experiments

        Clearly the second is academic misconduct. The first one is a lot more defensible.

        • sab@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, absolutely. But I still think it has its dangers.

          Using it to write the introduction doesn’t change the substance of the paper, yet it does provide the framework for how the reader interprets it, and also often decides whether it’ll be read at all.

          Maybe worse, I find that it’s oftem in the painful writing and rewriting of the introduction and conclusion that I truly understand my own contribution - I’ve done the analysis and all that, but in forcing myself to think about the relevance for the field and the reader I also bring myself to better understand what the paper means in a deeper sense. I believe this kind of deep thinking at the end of the process is incredibly valuable, and it’s what I’m afraid we might be losing with AI.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the key - it does not create, it can only copy.

        I have asked ChatGPT to write poetry on subjects that I know with great certainty have never had poems written about them.

        You can of course shuffle around the meanings of “create” and “copy” to try to accommodate that, but eventually you end up with a “copying” process that’s so flexible and malleable that it might as well be creativity. It’s not like what comes out of human brains isn’t based on stuff that went into them earlier either.