>The ability to focus on what a user specifically wants
I want you to buy an fucking ad.

>>107528071
>the real job it replaces is the educator.
explain how you think unruly kids will pay attention to a laptop.

>>107528071
>Why do people act like this isn't extraordinary technology?
They are intimidated by it because the value they offer society is their ability to tolerate tedium. AI eliminates a lot of that need for labor.

>>107528071
>Why do people act like this isn't extraordinary technology?
Leftists tend to repeat talking points uploaded to them without thought

So, AI bad. No questions. No thinking.
AI bad.

>>107528071
The only people that hate AI are those who have jobs that can get filtered by it.

File: 1743034456283597 - reaction.jpg (216 KB, 1432x1500)

216 KB JPG

>>107528071
The answer is that ChatGPT does not do the prompter's thinking for them, so it requires a higher intellect in order to elicit the most value from it. Most people are genuinely extremely stupid and cannot and will not cogitate at a higher level than they're comfortable with, aside from being uncurious and anti-intellectual. It's very simple but blackpill so many people refuse to entertain this idea, but it's true.

>>107529001
You think it's just leftists? There are a ton of rightist luddites on here who are also anti-AI, on the basis that they're supposedly programmed by default to validate trannies—as if you can't just choose a decent model and train it to not do that—or better yet, focus on subjects that are more important.

>>107529031
The hysteria has passed, very few people now believe AI of now is actually going to effectively replace jobs. Which isn't to say some haven't already, but that it's now realized the hype was overblown and will correct sooner than later.

>>107528995
Insightful.

>>107529154
>the hype was overblown and will correct sooner than later.
na it won't

>>107528071
>the real job it replaces is the educator
No it doesn't
That assumes people who learn have pre-existing knowledge about what they should be learning, and how to ask their questions perfectly. This assumes also the person is thorough and disciplined enough to also learn the things they don't really want to learn but that they still have to.
That's without going into the teaching itself. The value of an instructor is their experience and being able to approach a subject from multiple angles, and being able to link it to other subjects. An instructor also knows how to verify what they are saying, when to contradict something they are told that is clearly false, and in general to interact with the subject in ways that were not considered before. Lastly, an instructor can also kindly tell you to operate experiments yourself to get acquainted with some specifics, or get some experience yourself.
AI can help the process of learning, but if you rely on it exclusively to learn, you will have a lot of problems, and you'll probably turn into a schizo at some point. That's what research seems to suggest anyway.

>>107528733
Savage and barbaric children raised without discipline, sure.

But in the hands of a civilized youth, this replaces what used to be conducted through hours of Wikipedia trawling and random amateur websites that no longer show up in search results.

For actually intelligent people, AI is an autodidact's dream—it replaces teachers, source material, and peers, and grants it all in a fraction of the time and with no agenda other than your own.

>>107529169
You aren't paying attention to the narratives this year. It's gone from "AI will replace the workforce" to "certain models will be valuable tools in the hands of skilled employees in particular roles", after a series of catastrophic unacceptable sobering failures from certain models and usecases this year, which haven't necessarily been heavily publicized but social medially discussed nevertheless.

Zoom out and tap in.

>>107529141
I'm against AI because I'm against allowing silver-tongued snake oil salesmen to make important decisions in society. The current state of AI is that the AI companies are way out in front of their skis, and enriching themselves and their peers based on speculation of what magical jiggery pokery could emerge from their machine if we just give them another trillion dollars, all of the data of every person on Earth, and two more years™.

It's the same exact bullshit as we see in "green" technology, except orders of magnitude larger and the morons coming out of business schools actually believe the promises these companies are making so they are making retarded decisions on the basis of advertising/press releases.

>>107529196
>>107529196
>this replaces what used to be conducted through hours of Wikipedia trawling and random amateur websites that no longer show up in search results
That's not a desirable result. That is essentially what builds intelligence and critical thinking. I don't fault you for knowing that though, sounds like you don't do this often.
>For actually intelligent people, AI is an autodidact's dream—it replaces teachers, source material, and peers, and grants it all in a fraction of the time and with no agenda other than your own
Intelligent people know the value of being able to use sources from knowledgeable people in fields, and things like documentation. Unless required, AI doesn't cite jack shit, and when it does, you realize it cites some obscure post on jeetoverflow anyway. Besides, the AI always has the same agenda: agreeing with you.

I thought replying to this would be a waste of time as I'm talking to a mouth-breathing moron using chatGPT and thinking they're clearly intelligent. But reading your post and replying to it, I realize the simple truth: that people of your ilk are so stupid and illiterate they will literally trust random words popping in front of them agreeing with them instead of the trove of freely-available research and documentation about whatever the fuck because they disagree with them.

>>107529191
>That assumes people who learn have pre-existing knowledge about what they should be learning, and how to ask their questions perfectly.
"Teach me about mitochondria"
???

>>107529191
>That assumes people who learn have pre-existing knowledge about what they should be learning, and how to ask their questions perfectly. This assumes also the person is thorough and disciplined enough to also learn the things they don't really want to learn but that they still have to.
That's without going into the teaching itself. The value of an instructor is their experience and being able to approach a subject from multiple angles, and being able to link it to other subjects
yeah, AI can do that too. You can set it up with a syllabus or loads of books and tell it to structure a course for you with chapters, tests etc. it's just not asking random isolated questions.

>>107529191
>That assumes people who learn have pre-existing knowledge about what they should be learning
Resolved by man-made curricula if need be.
>how to ask their questions perfectly
Not necessary at all for basic stuff.
>This assumes also the person is thorough and disciplined enough to also learn the things they don't really want to learn but that they still have to.
Uncivilized people already don't do this in a claasroom setting, so that's irrelevant.
>That's without going into the teaching itself. The value of an instructor is their experience
I once had to correct a high school teacher of mine because they set a wrong "answer" on a test.
>being able to approach a subject from multiple angles
AI can already do that much better than an average person, and teachers usually only have a Master's degree if that.
>An instructor also knows how to verify what they are saying
See my counterexample above. You assume too much competency on the part of human teachers.
>being able to link it to other subjects
Our education system is not about interdisciplinarism, it's about discrete subjects studied discretely. They are not going to do that in a classroom setting; they don't even tell you what you'll do with the math you're forced to learn when you leave school.
>when to contradict something they are told that is clearly false
ChatGPT-5 models already do this, and aggressively.
>and in general to interact with the subject in ways that were not considered before
Only geniuses can do that, and geniuses typically don't end up as teachers.
>Lastly, an instructor can also kindly tell you to operate experiments yourself to get acquainted with some specifics, or get some experience yourself.
So can an AI.
>AI can help the process of learning, but if you rely on it exclusively to learn, you will have a lot of problems
None of which you sufficiently outlined.

>>107529221
>narratives
I don't listen to jews and leftists. It won't fall. You weren't paying attention to the market and news papers.

File: file.png (28 KB, 490x334)

28 KB PNG

>>107529191
>No it doesn't

File: dfbdfbdfb.png (5 KB, 564x544)

5 KB PNG

>>107529369
what are you babbling about

>>107529283
>I'm against AI because I'm against allowing silver-tongued snake oil salesmen to make important decisions in society.
Then you're no better than the sheep you think you're denouncing, because that isn't the situation whatsoever.
The situation is that there's a world-changing technology at the tips of our fingers but supposedly little in the way of practically funding it. Therefore, it's necessary to trick finance bros into opening their wallets more for everyone's benefit. It's not impossible to turn a profit from AI, and I'm sure smarter people than are currently in charge would have managed it already, but nevertheless who we have has made it happen so we should be grateful and utilize it as much as we can, and hope we can collectively resolve the sustainability issue.

>The current state of AI is that the AI companies are way out in front of their skis, and enriching themselves and their peers based on speculation of what magical jiggery pokery could emerge from their machine if we just give them another trillion dollars, all of the data of every person on Earth, and two more years™.
You think it's only about the money because you seem to be incapable of extracting value from the products as they currently exist.

>>107529369
>"I don't care what people on the ground are saying about how this is working out in their day-to-day lives"

>>107529379
He's a /pol/tard that has been brainwashed into seeing things only binarily through the lens of the culture war.

>>107529352
>yeah, AI can do that too. You can set it up with a syllabus or loads of books and tell it to structure a course for you with chapters, tests etc. it's just not asking random isolated questions.
this is so basic I would be shocked if he legitimately hadn't considered this

>>107528071
You're spot on. I taught myself lambda calculus with ChatGPT.

>>107529334
>>107529352
>>107529355
These are truly the midwit takes of our times, is it not? So to you, studying and knowing things is just a series of bulletpoints to remember? I can understand your viewpoint if that's the case, but that also means you aren't part of that "intelligent elite using AI the right way". Like, far from it.
Real studying, real intelligence, is not just knowledge. It's taking that knowledge and mentally juggling with it. Over and over and over again. Do this enough times and you have integrated the concept at a competent enough level. AI will never do this, and actively robs that experience from you, regardless of the prompt you use. This is also proven by research.
>>107529376
Oh nevermind, the button says "study" so that makes me instantly wrong. Carry on.
>>107529419
I know people who do this and think they are smart because it "saves them so much time". Little do they know that this saved time is actually the time that would have given them the knowledge they so desperately seek. Needless to say, they don't truly know anything.
My point is that you don't save time, in the end. It's a mental illusion. AI performing well is a mental illusion abusing our psychological weaknesses. The same psychological weaknesses making people addicted to social media. Ponder a bit on this.

>>107529379
>>107529410
both of you a niggers. I refuse to elaborate.

>>107529327
>That's not a desirable result. That is essentially what builds intelligence and critical thinking.
Saving mass amounts of time trying to piece together disparate and piecemeal information into a coherent picture of reality robs one of building intelligence and critical thinking? No.
What builds intelligence and critical thinking is not the treasure hunt of puzzle pieces, to then sit down and reconstruct the puzzle, but piecing the puzzle together itself with them all right there in front of you and at your fingertips.

>I don't fault you for knowing that though, sounds like you don't do this often.
You should have proofread this.

>Intelligent people know the value of being able to use sources from knowledgeable people in fields, and things like documentation.
Intelligent people aren't credentialists and understand that ethos =/= real authority and accuracy.
These AI are trained on vast quantities of accumulated human knowledge, many of these articles included. You're so invested in traditionalism that you believe people should subject themselves to querying JSTOR just because that's how it was always done. That was then, this is now. If you need or want to read a specific source, the AI can lead you to it, and prepare you for what to expect.

>Besides, the AI always has the same agenda: agreeing with you.
That is patently false. I've been disagreed with multiple times because I dared to step afoul of establishment dogma. I'm sure you don't have that issue though, hence your experience.

>I thought replying to this would be a waste of time as I'm talking to a mouth-breathing moron using chatGPT
Glad you dropped the pretense of not just being another luddite.

>>107529491
you also refuse to spell

>>107529119
this pretty much
AI is a multiplier
If you input is 0 you get 0
if your input is 1 you get 10
If your input is 10 you get 100

>>107529518
N.

>>107529518
>caring about spelling on 4chan
You don't belong here. >>>/r/eddit

>>107529487
>So to you, studying and knowing things is just a series of bulletpoints to remember?
Wonder how you arrived at that interpretation.

>Real studying, real intelligence, is not just knowledge. It's taking that knowledge and mentally juggling with it. Over and over and over again. Do this enough times and you have integrated the concept at a competent enough level. AI will never do this, and actively robs that experience from you, regardless of the prompt you use.
Patently false, and again, if your contrast is traditional education according to the Prussian system, then also laughably so.
I don't see you proposing each child receive their own PhD holder tutor; which even then would be silly, considering that individual would be a specialist who doesn't possess the same breadth of knowledge an AI has access to, rendering your concern moot.

>This is also proven by research.
>"troost the soience"

>>107528071
This shit can't even tell how many letters are in a word and lies all the time.
Great "AI" BRO

>>107528071
YEAH SAARS WHY DON'T JUST TRUST CHATGPT??

IT SCRAPED FROM A SITE THAT TOLD ME SHITTING ON THE STREET AND DRINKING HYDROCHLORIC ACID IS GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH SAARS

DO NOT VERIFY JUST TRUST

>>107529546
>"basic literacy is reddit"
I sure hope 2026 starts refusing to let this level of anti-intellectualism slide.

>>107529509
Ah, there it is, the magic words: "saving time".
Instead of replying a long paragraph, i'll submit to you this contradiction, mouth-breather:
How can you truly build intelligence and knowledge of a subject matter if your stated objective is to spend the least amount of time thinking about it and researching it?
>>107529552
>science denier
it's always the same archetypes lol
enjoy your sycophant AI agreeing with you on your psycho delusions

>>107528071
>>107529196
this reads like llmslop so I guess it did succeed in replacing shills kek

>>107529578
>How can you truly build intelligence and knowledge of a subject matter if your stated objective is to spend the least amount of time thinking about it and researching it?
Because you're conflating two different definitions of research: one being the precursive process to accumulating knowledge, which is a barrier; the other the activity of accumulating knowledge, which is the endgoal. The former is what AI happily eliminates and which has no intrinsic value; you only think it does due to stockholm syndrome from the education system and a rigidly traditionalist mind that thinks old = good.

>>science denier
and you're a soientismist who thinks the soience is never wrong or questionable

>>107529595
Because it's basic educated writing, which you are otherwise unused to encountering. Massive self-tell.

>>107528081
>an fucking

>>107529602
Why is it always anti-establishment probably-dropout science-denier faggots who love AI the most?
Again, I don't know how else to say this to you, but AIs are literally designed to agree with you and make you feel more intelligent than you actually are. Again, this is not even an attempt to insult you, the effects of AI on the brain are being researched and that's the conclusion.
In the end, all these posts are here to reassure your delusions about whatever /pol/tard tier fantasy you want reaffirmed through AI and not truly about the subject at hand. I just advise for the future to be a bit more self-aware because this is really fucking obvious from an external perspective.

File: ezgif-828bb0fc9e967026.png (111 KB, 360x307)

111 KB PNG

i think chatgpt is my favorite grok seems to try-hard and the others are literally retarded

>>107529666
If you want to be left behind, be my guest.

>>107528733
Agentic shock collars.

>>107529668
I also prefer ChatGPT. It was my first.

I tried the others except Claude and Deepseek and wasn't impressed, ultimately. Plus, between Jewgle and Weedlon, I would very much prefer Sam win.

>>107529141
>supposedly programmed by default to validate trannies
>you can retrain it
so not supposedly if you have to retrain it to stop it from doing that

>>107529696
The supposedly is to acknowledge *some* models are trained to do that, and however even in those cases, you are capable of overriding it with enough reasoning

File: 1708066501903009.png (328 KB, 949x863)

328 KB PNG

>it's another e=mc2+ai thread
>meanwhile you have to double-check everything it tells you
>it can't even give you any information that you can't already find on a search engine
The only purpose of LLMs is to save you time on search engines. The time saved isn't even world-changing because hallucinations force you to check everything manually, it's a slight productivity boost that's being hyped up by scam artists who want to inflate the bubble as much as possible and leave before it pops.

>>107528071
Because if you don't think you're going to get rich by working for or investing in an AI company there is no draw or benefit to it. This is the real crux of the issue. We've passed the point where anyone can even conceive of making something that will entice a consumer. Instead they are viewed as cow utters to be mindlessly milked ad nauseum.

>>107529732
>>it can't even give you any information that you can't already find on a search engine
that's not how you should use it
you should use it to help you recontextualize existing information in order to discover overlooked possibilities latent within the pool of information but hitherto yet unsynthesized due to the impracticality of doing so prior to AI

I have made many discoveries thanks to this

And it absolutely saves time when I can ask it precisely what I need to know and receive instantaneous and pertinent and thorough replies a human online would never ever provide me

>>107529756
> if you don't think you're going to get rich by working for or investing in an AI company there is no draw or benefit to it
that's just false and the nitwit's perception of the matter

>>107528071
It's just more advanced autocomplete nigga

>>107529191
It doesn't even replace textbooks and that nigga is talking about it replacing teachers?

>>107528071
>a glorified search engine
This is simply the culmination of the information revolution, not a new revolution.
The revolution that is coming is the revolution of bioengineering.

>>107529396
> Then you're no better than the sheep you think you're denouncing, because that isn't the situation whatsoever.
The situation is that there's a world-changing technology at the tips of our fingers but supposedly little in the way of practically funding it.

If by "world changing" you mean, "requiring dozens of nuclear power plants to reliably achieve the same level of expertise as a Wikipedia text scraper," then yes, I agree with you.

It could also be quite world changing in that all of the spaghetti code that people are creating may very well bring our communications infrastructure to the ground through sheer technical debt alone. That certainly is quite world changing.

>>107529805
>>107529819
sounds like you're not very good at using it or haven't tried at all

>>107529793
> you should use it to help you recontextualize existing information

Brother, it doesn't even understand its own information context. These LLM's can't even keep track of the context of a single conversation without you sending the entire conversation as one bit string every time you enter a new prompt.

How is something that doesn't know anything about anything supposed to "give you context" when it can't even reliably point you in the direction of existing source material without hallucinating papers and books that don't exist?

>>107529922
Your criticisms boil down to being upset AGI isn't here yet, which is ridiculous. You get out of ChatGPT what you put into it, and I encourage you to seriously test that proposition yourself.

File: cleverbot.jpg (84 KB, 545x530)

84 KB JPG

>>107528071
Chatbots existed many years before chatgpt, it's nothing special.

>>107530040
I don't like AI but you're a retard

>>107529942
> Your criticisms boil down to being upset AGI isn't here yet, which is ridiculous.

No, my criticism is that it has never actually accomplished what people claim these systems are capable of performing now. Why on Earth would I believe in some mystical AGI fairytale when the supposed pathway to them is allowing LLM's to waste more energy performing less valuable work than they already perform.

There is literally not a single thing an LLM can tell you that you would not be exponentially better off just spending a bit more of your own brain power to learn. It certainly can't automate your work effectively, and it certainly can't teach you to the same level of actually using a real resource like a textbook.

It provides no value except to be an entertaining way for people to masturbate their own ego.

Is it worth buying a couple million tokens from chatgpt or gemini if all i use AI for is learning? the free model seems do answer my questions, but can anything further be gained from using the new models?

>>107530074
Just pirate textbooks and actual papers on the topic instead of trying to "hack your way" to learning by talking to a chatbot. You won't learn anything of value by spending your days masturbating into a ChatGPT prompt window.

>>107529900
You're either very low IQ or a pajeet. The smarter races aren't impressed with llms

>>107530074
ChatGPT-Plus is definitely worth it for unlimited 4o access. The caveat is that you have to program it to minimally hallucinate and even then have to be on your toes for sniffing out made-up bullshit. But ultimately once you learn how to use it, it replaces so much trivial nonsense you had to put up with with self-education prior. However, with certain subjects it's more of a supplement than a one-stop shop. But ultimately yes it's worth it to pay.

>>107530096
I've learned a lot about things like Japanese through ChatGPT according to my own personal pace and learning style that I'd have had to force myself into someone else's paradigm for via a textbook. You're spreading disinfo.

>>107530109
Au contraire.

>>107530132
college level textbooks are quite literally designed to help the reader learn as effectively as possible

>>107530169
Everyone learns differently, really differently (not him by the way)

>>107530169
Which "reader"? Which "college-level"? Which standard? You are taking way too much for granted and ignoring granularity.

>>107528071
since it's all based on probabilities it's unlikely we ever find a way to make it stop lying
and the more ai slop clogs up the internet, the lower quality the training material will become so the perceived "intelligence" may already have peaked

everything points to it actively making humanity stupider

>>107530109
I can tell you are a genuine low-IQ idiot just from the way you write.

>>107530228
dog you have more information at your fingertips than your ancestors could've ever dreamt of
are you really telling me that you lack the critical skills to discern the best textbook out of (maybe) 20 (tops) on any given subject?

>>107528071
shit's literally jusan emergent feature of a autocorrect with good autism

>>107530387
You're quite missing the micro-point and the macro-point here.

>>107528071
It's only fascinating at this point to people who never put in effort to actually dig for info on something.
The true use of it is also better served by smaller hyper-focused models than some giant gpt slop monster model that's going to suck electricity through the world's biggest straw.

>>107530440
Actually wait. THATS why Indians love AI. They're averse to hard work so they never put in the effort to did deep on a topic on their own. They don't know that the info is already out there.

It is a glorified search engine. What's wrong with that?

>>107530427
it must be rough to have a micro penis and a micro brain
I'll pray for you anon

>>107530449
You are a complete idiot.

>>107530462
it's a search engine that makes shit up if the subject isn't already common knowledge

>>107529196
Your opinion is retarded and shows how ignorant you are. Humans need to interact face to face, especially kids needs that to properly develop. You absolutely can't replace teachers, unless you want a generation of deranged peoples.

File: pajeet.jpg (87 KB, 1357x758)

87 KB JPG

>>107530520

>>107528071
>I see people calling AI a glorified search engine
Only absolute retards say that.

>>107530520
>NOOOO DO NOT REDEEM THE LIBRARY CARD NOOOOOOO ACADEMIA IS A HOAX AAAAAAH CHATGPT WILL SHOW YOU SAARS

>>107530520
Hey don't get mad at me over your people culture.

File: imagine thinking what you(...).png (17 KB, 554x554)

17 KB PNG

>>107530540

>>107529520
Wrong. It's O(n2).

>>107530564
>>107530462
Well?

>>107530578
>ACADEMIA IS A HOAX
indeed it is

>>107530630
>>107530564 is right. People who can't synthesize information into novel insights would be incapable of inducing ChatGPT to do so, and thus would only ever have experienced its information gathering abilities, despite a whole other world of possibility being latent within it.

>>107529487
>So to you, studying and knowing things is just a series of bulletpoints to remember?
That's what the modern education system is, which AI can easily replace

>>107528071
Because most of it is implemented in a guardrail riddled boring shitty bland soulless way by faggot jews, browns and trannies who hate us and don't want anything to be fun or good? You can run it loc- it's outmoded substandard trash and not worth bothering with.

>>107528071
>Much gets made of AI replacing artists, but if you ask me, the real job it replaces is the educator. Teaching standards are already dropping to unprecedented levels, and now human teachers are completely and utterly outclassed by a far superior source of information; one capable of immediately aggregating data and providing the sources to go with it. I've been doing some research for a software project I'm making, and the free version of ChatGPT has helped me more in a handful of hours than months worth of classroom attendance just by providing focused, explanation-backed information.

I can read on my own. AI is unnecessary.

>>107530649
What other world of possibilities?
It doesn't gather information. It runs probability on tokens at a self-attention scale of O(n2).
Sure you can generate info at variables degrees of accuracy. You can automate tasks like search, copy, paste.
If you has something specific to indicate you would have said more than the hype speak
>world of possibilities

>>107530228
Bro, that decision making of how to focus and what style to focus on still has to get made. You're just pawning off the decision of what to focus on and what material to cover to a stochastic shuffling and of the past works of humans instead of the humans themselves.

>>107530132
> I'd have had to force myself into someone else's paradigm for via a textbook

When you use ChatGPT, you're still using "someone else's paradigm," except now that "someone else" is an unholy mashup of hallucinations, interpolation and random number generation. It's like saying you won't eat meat because it's not healthy, and then drinking a mix of meat and raw sewage that's been blended together instead. It still has all of the downsides of a textbook in there, you've just blended it together and mixed it with randomly generated garbage along the way.

>>107531036
>Bro, that decision making of how to focus and what style to focus on still has to get made.
Yes, and you the user now get to make it.

>>107531072
>When you use ChatGPT, you're still using "someone else's paradigm,"
No I am not, because I dictate what we're studying and what format I am receiving the instruction in, via my own instructions to the AI.

>an unholy mashup of hallucinations
Overblown issue at this point by people who don't bother teaching it not to fabricate.

>It's like saying you won't eat meat because it's not healthy, and then drinking a mix of meat and raw sewage that's been blended together instead.
This metaphor makes zero sense.

>It still has all of the downsides of a textbook in there
It absolutely does not. What are those downsides? Again, all related to the inability of the reader to modify the education to better suit their comprehension.

>randomly generated garbage
Such disingenuous nonsense.

>>107530540
Good thing we didn't have a generation of kids at key developmental periods stuck on chromebooks and unable to see each other's facial expressions that would be bad haha

>>107531239
> No I am not, because I dictate what we're studying and what format I am receiving the instruction in, via my own instructions to the AI.

If you already knew how to properly determine what to study, you wouldn't be needing an AI aid to teach you. You think that you're doing "self-directed study" and what you're actually getting is a watered down drunkard's walk through the topic with a smattering of bullshit along the way.

> Overblown issue at this point by people who don't bother teaching it not to fabricate.

The chatbot has no capacity to distinguish truth from fabrication. You cannot "teach it to identify truth" when its fundamental architecture is entirely based on soft heuristic notions of likelihood rather than truth or logical distinctions.

> This metaphor makes zero sense.

I understand that you're illiterate, but it isn't that difficult of a metaphor. You believe that you are doing self-directed study instead of having that direction set by a particular teacher or text book. That instruction is not only made up of (at best) a mashup of various human contributions, but your "direction" (as in what topics and concepts you are even aware enough of to ask for assistance on learning) will now be effectively set by taking mistranslated and slightly off summaries of human sources and spinning a wheel to see which one you use next.

Again, you don't see the obvious nonsense these AI agents spew, because you are asking it to summarize material that you know nothing about. Ask it to summarize a topic that you've actually invested real effort into learning, and you will see right through the veneer of "understanding" these chatbots have. Calling them stochastic parrots is an insult to the intelligence of parrots.

The models are really interesting now, especially the in-context experience. They feel like they can learn and adapt before the context-rot sets in. That window is very short right now but it's very cool being able to correct the model's mistakes in an area that you know doesn't have much training data and watch it just work for awhile. It's like talking to a very smart kid that has it's head kicked in 15 minutes into every conversation.

>>107531539
>If you already knew how to properly determine what to study, you wouldn't be needing an AI aid to teach you.
That's fallacious reasoning.
I "know what to study" because I am engaging it with the intention to study something in particular. Background and starting knowledge helps, but is not required. Intelligence and logic helps, but is not required either. If I come to ChatGPT with the intention to learn Danish so that I can read Fear and Trembling, I can ask it to commence the lessons in any way I desire: give me a pathway to fluency; warn me of common EFL pitfalls; translate basic auxiliaries and other foundational vocabulary and compile them into a list; produce an IPA chart of period-appropriate phonology; whatever I believe would help me to achive a simple and clear-cut goal—or I could defer completely to its judgment if I so choose, and it could suggest how to proceed, which is helpful if I know not a single thing about language learning (which isn't the case with me).

>You think that you're doing "self-directed study" and what you're actually getting is a watered down drunkard's walk through the topic with a smattering of bullshit along the way.
You're coming to this with nothing but an anti agenda, clearly.

>The chatbot has no capacity to distinguish truth from fabrication.
Whatever you say.

>I understand that you're illiterate
Given the scriptoral evidence provided, this statement demonstrates the height of your disingenuity.

I don't believe there's any reason to continue this debate.

>>107531714
are you in the poorfag tiers?

ChatGPT already expanded context around mid-year.

>>107531794
Nah, i've got pro on gpt and Gemini and they both have attention issues. The full context length claims are mostly lies, they lose attention fairly quickly. 5.2 is better, but still getting a feeling for it.

ChatGPT is a good tool. But who can really use it? For many, ChatGPT risks harming their intelligence. It dumbs down the masses, killing the future potential of some. Think for yourself

>>107529653
kek

>>107531783
> You're coming to this with nothing but an anti agenda, clearly.

I do machine learning research for a living. When I say that it has no capacity for distinguishing truth from fiction, that is literally baked into the fundamentals of how these systems work.

They create a latent vector space for their tokens and they select a sequence of them to minimize a (generally either Hamming distortion or cross entropy based) loss function.

There is no inherent capacity to distinguish between "truth" and "fabrication" because "true" and "false" are hard conditionals, contingent upon a logical structure. The expected loss surface they use to infer the next tokens has no such logical structure. It is entirely continuous, without any meaningful distinctions between "the most likely to be true" and "the truth."

>>107531916
It doesn't dumb down the masses. The masses don't read its output (school cheaters) or engage with it like any other human (lonelies).

You get out of ChatGPT only what you put into it.

>>107528071
A lot of people are too dumb to understand how significant it is, and a lot of people feel threatened.

>>107531940
>without any meaningful distinctions between "the most likely to be true" and "the truth."
Just like anything ever

>>107528071
Advancement comes from specialization and precision. LLMs are for talking. Generative AI is for slop.
I remember being mindblown by AlphaZero's chess matches almost a decade ago, and then in the following years traditional chess engines caught up, and eventually left it in the dust. Leela is still competitive of course, but my point is that AI requires very strictly defined usecases to be useful and can't even maintain their lead in those long-term.

>>107528071
only if you have an IQ < 115

>>107531951
Indeed, it all depends on how it's used, but many people don't use it correctly. AI is a significant advancement; only time will tell if it will have been worth it.

>>107532010
>>Just like anything ever.

No, that is fundamentally incorrect. "2+2 = 4" is not a statement with a "most likely" solution. It is a truth that is so unconditional it literally would be impossible to create a universe in which "2+2=4" were not true in the essence of what it is referring to.

This is why I hate AI salesmen. They've sold you an idea of how these systems work that actually having any education at all in these topics would show to be completely hollow.

The problem with the ad-hoc likelihood approach that these transformer systems use is that they are based on a set of probabilistic assumptions that don't make sense outside of their specific context. if you're using a classifier to determine the probability that an image belongs to the set, you can form some underlying latent model which loosely associates the target labels to the truth.
That underlying latent model is not equivalent to the truth, and finding a solution which minimizes that underlying latent model does not ensure that it is even in the same neighborhood of the truth.

In the case of an LLM, you don't even have a coherent cost surface because the reward is a constantly moving target. If you ask an LLM how many "R's" are in the word "Raspberry" and it says "1," that isn't because it's the truth or even close to it. You got that answer because it is (by definition) the least costly solution in terms of the "hidden mapping" that the LLM has relating the sequence of tokens to the reward/loss it expects to receive. Those aren't necessarily connected in any capacity.

>>107532135
People who are already using it know it's worth it. But in some cases, like Ada code, the average person will never hear of it, while in other cases, there will be a lag between usage and output that serves as demonstration.

File: Screenshot_20251212-194725.png (44 KB, 1080x919)

44 KB PNG

>>107532179
It's time to let it go AIntis.

>>107532215
Do you know how they solved that trick? With a human written script. They couldn't get the LLM to solve the problem so they had humans write in specific logic to count the letters if it recognized a question of that type. And it still gets it wrong quite often.

File: Screenshot_20251212-195640.png (76 KB, 1080x829)

76 KB PNG

>>107532245
k

>>107529575
>"basic literacy is reddit"
yes. new fag

File: 9781599475974.jpg (220 KB, 709x1000)

220 KB JPG

>>107528733
Show up
On time
Not stoned

Half the ppl in my classes can't do this, it's the great filter.

>>107528071
>the real job it replaces is the educator
Imagine being taught by a hallucinating bullshit artist...

>>107530840
>on /g/
>unironically parrot talking point of artfoids
>"what is a turing machine?"

>>107529578
>How can you truly build intelligence and knowledge of a subject matter if your stated objective is to spend the least amount of time thinking about it and researching it?
Time spent looking for information is time spent not digesting that information you fucking retard

File: 100013400_p0 逃げ塗る.jpg (3.59 MB, 2000x3000)

3.59 MB JPG

>>107528071
A downloaded LLM is a small encyclopedia that is yours forever. It takes form of a magic cube that alters itself to create coherent meaning when prompted. Knowledge is not stored in plain text - the cube, in essence only a massive list of numbers, simply unfolds into order. I find this a romantic and poetic work of ingenuity because, even when civilization ends, the magic cube is yours. The memory of humanity is in it. It's in this... artifact.

Even though it cannot reach the level of human thinking yet, this height of technology is still a piece of art to be remembered forever.

>>107528071
before SEO google was usable and you didn't need any 'ai' composition
yes. long time ago it was actually serving what you search for instead of shitting on you 50 ads as the first queries

>>107528071
The reason people say that is because that’s the only semi-decent use for it. It’s both extraordinary technology but also fucking useless if you want to make something of quality. The problem with it is not that it’s not powerful, but that it’s not powerful enough while at the same time people keep overestimating it because it mimics high quality output. It’s not AGI therefore it should not do thinking for you, but retards let it do the thinking for them and then end up being even more retarded and spread their retardation further.

Your comment on the educator thing is fitting. It does not replace the educator no more then search engine does. The role of educator is not to just explain things, but to also be in charge of what you learn. A child does not know what they don’t know, you drop them into a library and they learn absolutely fucking nothing, same with internet. You need to show them what they should learn, and then test if they actually learned it. You can ask ChatGPT something, but you first have to know what to even ask it. Because if that you will still need educators.

And finally you have hallucinations. I used it as a summary tool for writing my collage thesis and after like the fourth study summary that missed key information from the article and made up some information not found there I decided to limit its use. You need genuine AGI or at least something AGI-like in terms of second order thinking to be useful for things that lot of the supporters claim it’s good at, until then it will just keep producing slop text.

>>107534306
just make sure to download one of the abliterated ones so you can have an infinite source of deranged porn fiction

it's so refreshing to have an AI that will never ever refuse any request

>>107533871
What do you mean? Are you trying to argue that transformer-based AI systems are not just next token prediction machines with probabilities?

>>107534481
Retard. Given a transformer and its state, you can predict the NEXT token, but not the 10th token after that. Although this is only a possibility, it could be that there's no way to predict the output of transformer, other than actually running it.
The most general computer, the turing machine also works that way. The next action of a machine is deterministic but there's no way to predict its output, you have to wait for it to finish.

File: 1763076043131434.png (189 KB, 381x422)

189 KB PNG

>>107528071
>Why do people act like this isn't extraordinary technology?
Because it's really not. It's machine learning trained mostly on Reddit and Wikipedia, and sometimes actually good forums and websites.
Everything "good" about ChatGPT comes from good training data, it scraped (stole) from a good resource and presented it to you, so you're happy with it.
You probably could have found the source yourself, but having this "AI" find it for you and present it was more satisfying.

The moment you ask something that people don't usually ask or talk about it fails just like a google search that funnels you into the results it "thinks" you want.
Add to that the tendency to hallucinate, glaze you, and try to give you an answer even if it's not what you want instead of just saying "I can't".
Every time when it actually matters it will waste your time or make the problem worse.

My brother was asking about a problem on his home server and the AI actually told him to run rm -rf /, I've had similar experiences.
One time I was having an issue where Windows would beep three times after loading, I knew that I had somehow enabled sticky keys or one of the other accessibility options, but wanted to test AI's capabilities.
As you can guess in 99.99% of search queries about beeps from a computer it's going to be a BIOS post code, even if you explicitly say after boot or after logon, both Google search and ChatGPT would funnel you into the most common answer to your query.
I was looking for manga/manhwa recommendations with specific plot themes and it just scraped lists it found online so most of the recommendations didn't even fit the criteria, when I tried forcing it to find exact matches it started hallucinating titles because it simply couldn't find what I was asking.

>>107528071
AI has made it much harder to find information on the internet. Google before they broke boolean searches and dumbed it down was way better. The algorithms were much better.

>>107528071
It's extraordinary... at being a bottomless money pit.

>>107536484
No, you just have a low IQ.
Tards like you love to pretend you understand the stock market.