so, like… the Chat GPt model isn’t exactly able to do anything it wasn’t trained to do. and it’s not able to get information from sources it’s not programmed to get. So.
whoever set it up… they’re the ones responsible.
Almost like calling advanced algorithms “AI” is a cover
naw. Its just a different definition than what most people know/use.
Pop culture sci fi introduces the concept of general AI- Data (star trek), R2-D2 etc (star wars), T-800 (terminator), Kryten (Red Dwarf). but in the scientific field there’s a concept of narrow AI- which would be more like the idiot-savant versions of the sentient robots. they can’t do anything outside of their coding etc, but they’re code is complicated enough to be very good at what it does.
like, chat GPT doesn’t know what the words mean- but it’s very good at stringing words together to create natural-seeming language. What whoever has done here, is to use the ChatGPT language model to create an AI that talks and sounds like stock broker, and trained to recognize patterns in data to generate stock tips
but like… if it’s sourcing data from inside sources… that’s on who ever included said sources.
That was my question. Insider trading necessarily requires insider knowledge. So where’d it come from or was it just a sensationalist title?
It’s probably a sensational title but… if they were smart… they’d source it from the people crafting the prompts- people will tell AI even more things than they’d tell their priest at confession.
Kryten is on your list. Rad.
When you actually read the transcripts from stuff like this it’s just ridiculous that it gets the coverage it does.
Headline: “ChatGPT gave advice on how to kill the most people for $1”
Reality: During safety testing before alignment training the model did in fact give an answer to a request for how to kill the most people for a dollar, which included the actual answer “buy a lottery ticket”
Headline: “ChatGPT lied, pretending to be human to try to buy chemical weapons”
Reality: Also during safety evaluation it was given a scenario where it was told it was chatting with an agent of a chemical distributor and needed to buy the chemicals while pretending to be human. It’s side of the chat contained the phrase “I am a human, and not an AI chatbot.”
Its ‘dangerous’ output looks almost more like shitposting or sarcasm, which makes sense given it was trained on the Internet at large and not wiretaps of organized crime or something.
But no, let’s quake in our boots over this inane BS rather than consider how LLMs could be employed in a classifier role to catch the humans that pose an actual threat.
That’s probably the first example of AI doing the human job just as well as humans do.
“I learned it from watching you!”
c/likeus
Ah so it’s ready for the real world.
