The ChatGPT Thread

[trophyshy 8997]

Hairdressing Rayvin. You’ve got the bedside manner nailed. 

[Andrew 7457]

1 hour ago, trophyshy said:

Hairdressing Rayvin. You’ve got the bedside manner nailed. 

I don't want to hear the word "sorry" from my hairdresser at any point.

[RobinRobin 14489]

5 hours ago, Renton said:

 It can draw CT with a silly panama hat.

To be fair, HMHM's photoshop panache is sufficient for that. 

[Craig 12329]

It's not useless, but it has its limitations which many seem to have difficulty in appreciating. Fantastic for summarising, reporting & trending - beyond that it needs to be treated with caution. 

It's not the pancea of technology many are purporting it be. Very much still in the "that's the answer but we not really sure on the question" stage. Humanity went through something similar 40-50 years ago with robotics. 

[Andrew 7457]

Just now, Craig said:

It's not useless, but it has its limitations which many seem to have difficulty in appreciating. Fantastic for summarising, reporting & trending - beyond that it needs to be treated with caution. 

It's not the pancea of technology many are purporting it be. Very much still in the "that's the answer but we not really sure on the question" stage. Humanity went through something similar 40-50 years ago with robotics. 

and I still dont have one of these, so we shouldn't be moving on yet!

 

[Toonpack 15528]

It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Kill it with fire.

[ewerk 39144]

You’ve got a strange taste in sex dolls.

[Craig 12329]

2 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Kill it with fire.

It's a powerful tool, but when you're yet to work out what need you have for it, it's also a dangerous one. 

Doesn't need killing with fire, but people do need to stop treating it like the Emperor's new clothes.

[Andrew 7457]

8 minutes ago, ewerk said:

You’ve got a strange taste in sex dolls.

I don't see what Toonpacks proclivities have to do with this...

[Andrew 7457]

9 minutes ago, Andrew said:

and I still dont have one of these, so we shouldn't be moving on yet!

 

There is a semi-serious (steady on ewerk) point behind this though.

Why is so much AI use being driven towards destroying the arts? The stuff that people aspire to do and that bring enjoyment and meaning to life.

I want AI figuring out the shit no one wants to do, not the stuff we do.

Hence my "tool in the hands of an expert" comment.

[Howmanheyman 43835]

I've used it a couple of times for a joke picture and it's largely shit, have absolutely no need for it at all, sometimes something will come up on a work PC or the phone imploring me to use a new AI tool. Why? What possible use could I have for it? If I need information I'll look for it myself and be careful where I get it from and whether I can trust it. It absolutely won't be taking my job so easy for me to mock it but everyone's concerns on here are totally legitimate and it's another step for mankind in dumbing down iyam.

[Craig 12329]

7 minutes ago, Andrew said:

There is a semi-serious (steady on ewerk) point behind this though.

Why is so much AI use being driven towards destroying the arts? The stuff that people aspire to do and that bring enjoyment and meaning to life.

I want AI figuring out the shit no one wants to do, not the stuff we do.

Hence my "tool in the hands of an expert" comment.

This entirely. It also needs to ensure its application is creating genuine efficiencies. 

My degree was in manufacturing and robotics formed a decent part of it. One case study was on Austin cars who invested heavily in robotics. They had the things screwing bulbs into headlight assemblies .... badly! So were having to employ someone in addition to that to pick them up and screw them in properly.

 

Also this bullshit narrative that corporations put out that their heavy investment in this is in no means aimed at headcount reduction is entirely that ... bullshit. They'd be better off just being honest about it.

[Renton 27742]

6 hours ago, Andrew said:

I don't want to hear the word "sorry" from my hairdresser at any point.

 

 

Sorry.

[Renton 27742]

1 hour ago, Andrew said:

There is a semi-serious (steady on ewerk) point behind this though.

Why is so much AI use being driven towards destroying the arts? The stuff that people aspire to do and that bring enjoyment and meaning to life.

I want AI figuring out the shit no one wants to do, not the stuff we do.

Hence my "tool in the hands of an expert" comment.

 

If AI can destroy the arts, what does that say about the arts or we as consumers though? 

AI will obviously ultimately be used where there is a profit to be had. Maybe there is an analogy with food here. Much of what we consume is highly processed garbage but there is still room for artisan food or home cooked for those that have the luxury of time and/or money.

[Andrew 7457]

The profit in AI art (which there is none of, it's a bubble) is built on the back of theft from talented hardworking people.

 

It says nothing good about consumers that it is doing it.

[Gemmill 62997]

The streaming services are the issue when it comes to AI music. 

 

Not a lot of people buy music anymore, but those who do buy music made by real people. 

 

But if you're just paying a monthly subscription to stream music, all bets are off. If streaming companies gave a shit about anything but profit, they should be acting to remove AI slop but the truth is the reverse of that. More AI generated music, especially the stuff they create themselves, is good for their bottom line. 

 

Spotify has AI "artists" now with millions of monthly listens. 

[Meenzer 17989]

I suppose one of the issues there is that a lot of people just want "background noise" from their music streaming - it's essentially what radio stations once were - so it doesn't really matter to them what they're listening to. Doesn't apply to all or even a majority of consumers, but if a sufficiently big minority don't care, just like with AI slop art, then it becomes A Thing and we're all stuck with it.

[Craig 12329]

[Dr Gloom 26311]

3 hours ago, Craig said:

It's not useless, but it has its limitations which many seem to have difficulty in appreciating. Fantastic for summarising, reporting & trending - beyond that it needs to be treated with caution. 

It's not the pancea of technology many are purporting it be. Very much still in the "that's the answer but we not really sure on the question" stage. Humanity went through something similar 40-50 years ago with robotics. 

 

it's just getting started and we all know where it ends 

 

[Rayvin 8312]

2 hours ago, Renton said:

 

 

Sorry.

 

What the fuck do you think I look like...  

[Gemmill 62997]

 Edward Sorryhands

 

 

[Rayvin 8312]

I think with art, AI allows people who aren't talented in particular skillsets but who have creative ideas they're unable to easily realise, to achieve those. Not as well as someone talented, but well enough. That bit is a novelty though.

 

The fact that I can get it to perform changes to production files for publishing to a high enough degree of accuracy that I can run with it, means it's cutting 20-25% of my production costs. That's not nothing. And in my case, that's the difference between a book being published or not. It essentially permits a democratisation of skills by removing technical barriers.

 

And again, I know how damaging that is - but that's what it's going to do. That's the question it's answering.

[Renton 27742]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

What the fuck do you think I look like...  

 

I honestly have no clue.

 

Went down the EMO route to match your online persona.

 

[Renton 27742]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

I think with art, AI allows people who aren't talented in particular skillsets but who have creative ideas they're unable to easily realise, to achieve those. Not as well as someone talented, but well enough. That bit is a novelty though.

 

The fact that I can get it to perform changes to production files for publishing to a high enough degree of accuracy that I can run with it, means it's cutting 20-25% of my production costs. That's not nothing. And in my case, that's the difference between a book being published or not. It essentially permits a democratisation of skills by removing technical barriers.

 

And again, I know how damaging that is - but that's what it's going to do. That's the question it's answering.

 

Thing is, 2 years ago I had barely heard of ChatGPT or AI. Now, we're here. What is it going to be like in a decade? I know there is a potential ceiling to generative AI, but if artificial general intelligence ever becomes a think, then that's the SkyNet scenario I guess.

[Christmas Tree 6688]

2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

I think with art, AI allows people who aren't talented in particular skillsets but who have creative ideas they're unable to easily realise, to achieve those. Not as well as someone talented, but well enough. That bit is a novelty though.

 

The fact that I can get it to perform changes to production files for publishing to a high enough degree of accuracy that I can run with it, means it's cutting 20-25% of my production costs. That's not nothing. And in my case, that's the difference between a book being published or not. It essentially permits a democratisation of skills by removing technical barriers.

 

And again, I know how damaging that is - but that's what it's going to do. That's the question it's answering.

Pretty much how illiterate people can spell using Word and excel has done away with lots of bookkeepers. 
 

Some of the concerns raised here are understandable but some of you (Not looking at HMHM), had counterparts saying the same stuff about computers.

 

Even now, used correctly AI has a lot of benefits, but all this is nothing compared to what’s coming in the next 5-1o years. It will transform movie and TV making, which let’s face it we will need to occupy our free time.