I've been using chatgpt 3.5 free online demo recently. Is this really supposed to replace people?

I've been using ChatGPT 3.5 free online demo recently. Is this really supposed to replace people?

>very wordy, takes 5 bullet points with a paragraph per bulletpoint to "answer" my question
>blatantly wrong information
>information that doesn't actually answer my question
>lots and lots of fluff

I must be using it wrong, right? Surely this thing isn't what people are hyping up is it? I mean it's kinda cool but it's more like a google search 2.0 than an AI.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone using an LLM to replace jobs is hopefully using the most advanced version. (3.5 is ancient, anon)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what's the most advanced one? I want to try it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Either ChatGPT 4 Turbo (newest one, April 2024) or Claude Opus are top tier right now

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Either ChatGPT 4 Turbo (newest one, April 2024) or Claude Opus are top tier right now

        This. Also you're not using it right. You're not supposed to ask it simple questions. You're supposed to add a bit of context. I figured this out very quickly but then again I'm not a moronic, objectively inferior subhuman like OP who posts ugly shit like pic

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >very wordy, takes 5 bullet points with a paragraph per bulletpoint to "answer" my question
          You need to tell it not to do that.
          >blatantly wrong informarion
          On certain topics hallucinations are worse than others

          Overall, it sounds like a case of severe user error.

          Why do I need to tell it not to be wordy? I tell it not to be wordy and it just shortens it's wordcount but doesn't answer my question. Almost seems like it's vomitting out a ton of information hoping some of it is correct.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >tell it to not be wordy
            >its supposed to automatically know what you mean by "not being wordy"
            kek moron of the year

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              the machine is supposed to speak fricking english telling it to not be wordy should be enough

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Don't bother, OP probably types in all lowercase letters with no punctuation, no structure, and doesn't frame his request as a story.

          [...]
          Why do I need to tell it not to be wordy? I tell it not to be wordy and it just shortens it's wordcount but doesn't answer my question. Almost seems like it's vomitting out a ton of information hoping some of it is correct.

          >but why do I need to [format my input to get a certain output]?
          Because that's how human beings talk to one another and that's what the training data is made of.
          All the text that the linear regression algorithm used is human conversational text shit, not 500 terabytes of Table of Contents entries.
          Although I bet if you could write like a Table of Contents entry you'd get good results too.

          The more "context" (aka prompt text that aligns with the thing you want) you provide, the more the algorithm can zero in on the information you want.
          The more vague you are, the more you leave out, the larger the range of mathematically valid answers you get. As you provide more text that relates to your query, you narrow down the scope of probabilistic correct responses.

          It's just a big search engine, or like a huge answer key to a test, or a rubric, or whatever.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's fairly over-hyped. I'm not even convinced LLMs have improved much. They just lobotomize them slowly so they seem more impressive on the next iteration.

    I will say they're a great help when it comes to professional writing, sorting through documentation, and tasks that require large amounts of knowledge. They aren't the spooky scary boogie man that people act like they are. Not for at least another 30 years minimum. If that.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They made it wordy exactly to distract people from the low quality of the content.
    Most people are easily impressed by long sentences and don't even pay attention to what it's actually being said.

    Politicians often employ the exact same tactic.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/tiGHURT.png

      [...]
      This. Also you're not using it right. You're not supposed to ask it simple questions. You're supposed to add a bit of context. I figured this out very quickly but then again I'm not a moronic, objectively inferior subhuman like OP who posts ugly shit like pic

      i love asiasn women so mcuh frickkk

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        honestely?
        id frick

        would.

        Frick, why is it so hard to get women that look like this in the US, I just imagine how wild in bed they must be too, totally crazy

        Please have some self-respect. I want to vomit looking at THAT.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          just say you're GAY

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >gay or landwhale lover
          Confess.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      honestely?
      id frick

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      would.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick, why is it so hard to get women that look like this in the US, I just imagine how wild in bed they must be too, totally crazy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Repulsive

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Adorable

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the post that tore BOT apart

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      would

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/tiGHURT.png

      [...]
      This. Also you're not using it right. You're not supposed to ask it simple questions. You're supposed to add a bit of context. I figured this out very quickly but then again I'm not a moronic, objectively inferior subhuman like OP who posts ugly shit like pic

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        CUTE!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm 30+ and I'll take whatever tight asian veganaI can get

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/tiGHURT.png

      [...]
      This. Also you're not using it right. You're not supposed to ask it simple questions. You're supposed to add a bit of context. I figured this out very quickly but then again I'm not a moronic, objectively inferior subhuman like OP who posts ugly shit like pic

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >very wordy, takes 5 bullet points with a paragraph per bulletpoint to "answer" my question
    You need to tell it not to do that.
    >blatantly wrong informarion
    On certain topics hallucinations are worse than others

    Overall, it sounds like a case of severe user error.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    use gpt-4 and use these custom instructions for an actual smart AI companion
    >Talk to me like a person, not a list generator. Keep it professional. Keep answers short unless asked to elaborate. Give a complete answer, but be concise. Avoid list format unless absolutely necessary (as in, I explicitly ask you to generate a list).

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everything it says is generic, zero personality, corporate, family-friendly, morally neutral reddit homosexual shit. Try talking to it about any topic with weight and it starts giving you suicide hotline numbers. It can do some interesting things, though! These include:
    >correcting simple code with roughly 62% accuracy
    >pretending to be your anime wife who forgets your name and what you were talking about nine minutes ago
    >letting Rajindahar sound like a real person in spam emails

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Normalgays just using it for basic stuff won't understand. Only those of us using it for code understand how well it's able to think logically. 3.5 was mind-blowing, one of the most amazing pieces of technology I've ever used. 4 is a nice upgrade.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >chatgpt 3.5
    that's ancient anon

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      cool

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I must be using it wrong, right?
    You know, most people prefer wrong information.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you arent being explicit enough

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ChatGpt really isn't that good. I know guys who use it for coding but they also suck. If you are competent it's not a huge help. And yes, I'm using gpt4.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's perfect for future humans.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >lust provoking image

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Checked
      I wouldn't be surprised if one of these days I start fapping into anthropomorphic caricature pornography

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >chatgpt 3.5
    Cease to reproduce if you really can't even look up what the most up to date gpt version is before forming an opinion

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I got the same shit from Llama 3 70B when I was checking that out (I don't use LLMs). Nearly everything was bullet points. Kinda lame.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >buddeng technology is seen as it's maximum potential
    Gee willikers anon, I wonder why we aren't riding the hottest 1900 model of cars

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You must be moronic. I've pretty much replaced 90% of my googling habits with chatGPT-4. I have a very good intuition to the kinds of questions it can answer and I didn't even need to learn anything.

    Just so we can laugh, what question are you asking?

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. Most of them suck. The Bing one just rips the bullet points out of the first 3 searches. Its only good for lonely autists and coomers.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *