Post inspired by the bot threat that people on Lemmy have been talking about. I’m not asking how an expert would design it, but how you would design it if you were tasked with it.
Post inspired by the bot threat that people on Lemmy have been talking about. I’m not asking how an expert would design it, but how you would design it if you were tasked with it.
That’s why I used the phrase “faking empathy”, I’m fully aware the chatGPT doesn’t “understand” the question in any meaningful sense, but that doesn’t stop it from giving meaningful answers to the question - that’s literally the whole point of it. And to be frank, if you think that a unique question would stump it, I don’t think you really understand how LLMs work. I highly doubt that the answer it spit back was just copied verbatim from some response in it’s training data (which btw, includes more than just internet scraping). It doesn’t just parrot back text as is, it uses existing tangentially related text to form it’s responses, so unless you can think of an ethical quandary which is totally unlike any ethical discussion ever posed by humanity before (and continue to do so for millions of users), then it won’t have any trouble adapting to your unique questions. It’s pretty easy to test this yourself, do what writers currently do with chatGPT - go in and give it an entirely fictional context, with things that don’t actually exist in human society, then ask it questions about it. I think you’d be surprised with how well it handles that, even though it’s virtually guaranteed there are no verbatim examples to pull from for the conversation