Thread

ChatGPT now knows what you do on other websites via ad collector

764 points · 395 comments · lmbbuchodi

mavsman · 1789923911 · focus · HN ↗
To me, this quote just about sums it up:
> The mechanism is standard adtech. What has no precedent is running it on an AI chat product.
As someone who has been well aware of this mechanism for quite some time, I still feel icky anytime I re-read the details of it.
What a time to be alive.
1. jsrozner · 1789925147 · focus · HN ↗
  People think they're interacting with an "intelligence," when actually they're just getting a maximally optimized Weizenbaum feed. We're living through the sloppification of the human mind.
  See e.g., <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-chatbots-are-becoming-experts-changing-people-s-minds-what-s-their-secret" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-chatbots-are-beco...
  1. ben_w · 1789927543 · focus · HN ↗
    What's the old quote from WW2?
    I couldn't help but notice how each successive headline reporting our glorious victories seemed to draw closer to Tokyo.
    Something like that.
    Well. I can't help but notice how each successive headline reporting how this "scam"/stochastic parrot/"scare quotes intelligence" seems to be solving more and more things that were but a few years ago widely regarded as being indicators of high intelligence.
    Being highly convinving is one of the things on that list.
    moth11 · 1789930566 · focus · HN ↗
    Nobody is denying that it's effective. They're denying intelligence
    A programming contest has a problem where given N < 10000, do something hard like come up with the number of primes less than N
    You can come up with all sorts of algorithms that do intelligent things. But the most effective solution is to use metaprogramming to make a massive switch statement that contains all the answers
    fasterik · 1789933091 · focus · HN ↗
    Are they denying intelligence, or are they redefining it in such a way that only humans can be intelligent? Can you come up with a definition of intelligence that would apply to crows and ant colonies, which are obviously intelligent to some degree, but not the current generation of AI systems?
    mitxela · 1789933517 · focus · HN ↗
    Nobody knows what intelligence is. We've recently discovered a lot of things that it isn't.
    infinite_spin · 1789934112 · focus · HN ↗
    Why would a set of dictionary definitions not suffice?
    mitxela · 1789934230 · focus · HN ↗
    Those are distillations of existing knowledge. They are necessarily behind the status quo. "You can't call this newfangled contraption a computer, because a computer is a person!"
    infinite_spin · 1789935826 · focus · HN ↗
    > Those are distillations of existing knowledge.
    Definitions are "formal statements of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc" (<a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition" rel="nofollow">https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition)
    > They are necessarily behind the status quo.
    The existing state or condition would be what is written in the dictionary, not whatever personal definitions you've constructed.
    > "You can't call this newfangled contraption a computer, because a computer is a person!"
    Seems like a straw man. A computer is not a mammal, no matter how much you twist a set of definitions.
    quicklime · 1789939469 · focus · HN ↗
    > A computer is not a mammal, no matter how much you twist a set of definitions.
    I’m not the person you replied to, but I believe they’re referring to the occupation of “computer”:
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)
    So yes, at one time all computers were mammals.
    The people who write dictionaries generally take a descriptivist approach, that’s why slang terms enter the dictionary after they start to become popular.
    The state of the art of human knowledge would be another step ahead of the common use of any language.
    infinite_spin · 1789939868 · focus · HN ↗
    That's an interesting take, and I can see how "computer" could refer to a human a hundred years ago, but they also mentioned "status quo", which should indicate that a reasonable person should use a modern definition.
    quicklime · 1789940595 · focus · HN ↗
    Again I’m not the person who wrote the comment, but I think they were exaggerating for effect and maybe lost the audience in doing so. While “computer” has meant the same thing for many decades now, the term “intelligence” really does seem like a moving goalpost?
    infinite_spin · 1789942292 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it's only a moving goalpost if you can show that the goalpost has moved with a new definition that fits our current usage of it. The people saying "this isn't intelligence", and then claim "we don't even know what intelligence is", are encouraged to offer such a definition.
    mitxela · 1789944550 · focus · HN ↗
    Several decades ago, "computer" was a moving goalpost due to the invention of the electronic computer, and then the digital computer.
    infinite_spin · 1789952310 · focus · HN ↗
    yet those movements came with clear definitions. If you have a new definition for intelligence, which isn't just designed as a definitional dodge, then please provide one
    mitxela · 1789943161 · focus · HN ↗
    Imagine you're the first one to invent a digital electronic computer. You call it a computer, and I go on Tinkerer News and post (by carrier pigeon) "ummm akshully computers are people????" - which one of us would be adding value and which one subtracting it?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.