I just posted this on LinkedIn in response to a survey from a colleague of mine asking whether ChatGPT should be credited as a co-author on papers:

1. ChatGPT does not have a conception of what is going on in the world. It is a word-emitter that tricks human minds into thinking it does. In other words, it’s a kind of complex automaton, a marionette. The fact that the action of it is complex enough to fool us into thinking it “knows” something does not mean it does
   
2. ChatGPT is as likely to emit false information as true information (perhaps more so; has this been assessed?)
   
3. ChatGPT does not have deductive or inductive logical reasoning capabilities; nor does it have any “drive” to follow these principles
   
4. Human papers are for human writers to communicate to human readers. It seems to me that the only argument in favor of including ChatGPT in this process is a misguided drive to speed up the process even more than publish-or-perish has. In fact it should be slowed down and made more careful.
   
5. The present interest in ChatGPT is almost entirely driven by investor-fueled hype. It’s where investors are running after the collapse of cryptocurrency/web3. There is a nice interview with Timnit Gebru on the Tech Won’t Save Us podcast, titled “Don’t Fall for the AI Hype” that goes into this if you’re curious. As computer scientists, we should not be chasing trends like this.

@abucci@anthony.buc.ci I’d disagree. The world is huge. We are 8 billion people, as individuals we can impact 100, perhaps 1,000 people. Even the biggest companies impact billions, but not all humanity. Even countries and global leaders impact a slice of the world. It’s a huge problem for us to solve. It’s nice tring to break limits. In my youth, for that sake I joined into politics, companies, and non-profits. And it’s hard and a bit disappointing that things doesn’t improve in the way we’d expect. Requires a lot of energy to fight the status quo.

And we need to have hope of a better world. We as humans, NEED hope. Thats why religions, organizations, volunteers, exist.
It’s not romantic to say something against hope. It’s better to say “Yeah, let’s follow this politician/businesspeople/influencer/idealism, they have an answer to the problem”, usually is not true.

But on what I’d agree is that we can impact OUR world. We can avoid using the polluting product, the toxic technology or what the evil company mak

take it from who it comes. I could be wrong and I’m in a stage of my life defining what is the next step to have a decent lifestyle while I’m feeling proud, or at least not-shaming from my passage though this world.

I live in a “second world/developing country” with the former richest man in the world. We have scarcity, and people here needs to believe on a better life. I think it’s the same everywhere else but here is not a matter of “having vacation this year” but “having housing and food tomorrow”
Perhaps that changes POVs, I don’t know.

I’m open to ideas, but please be gentle and understand other lives and other realities. As I say to my students, colleagues and friends. Every person has a different reality, a perception of it. Some live on a reality distortion field. A.k.a. Biases, but that’s another story.
Be empathetic. And let’s work together for a better world, trying to make something helpful as a group and as individuals.

@eaplmx@twtxt.net I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with.

@abucci@anthony.buc.ci try to… It’s not easy, but I know you can

@abucci@anthony.buc.ci that’s the key, go outside your computer science environment, get out of your confort zone

@abucci@anthony.buc.ci I guess the best is to block each other since our ideas are not compatible and we are not open to change our mind
Thanks for the conversation tho

I believe this is a huge misunderstanding, probably driven by the fact that @eaplmx@twtxt.net first language isn’t English. I don’t see any correlation between his replies to yours, @abucci@anthony.buc.ci. So I, too, am lost.

I wanted to add that—at least for me—it is hard to follow long twtxts, especially because I come here on mobile. I see twtxt as microblogging, and adjust my attention span accordingly. 😂🙈

@eaplmx@twtxt.net / @abucci@anthony.buc.ci / @bender@twtxt.net I’m afraid I’m not going to do this Twt and justice as I haven’t read the full Yarn (yet), but I just wanted to say off the bat just based on the first 3 Twts in this Yarn:

And we need to have hope of a better world. We as humans, NEED hope. Thats why religions, organizations, volunteers, exist.

I’m sorry but I don’t agree with this statement. “Hope”, whilst a powerful and useful human emotion doesn’t solve anything. We cannot “hope” that the assholes of the world will stop being selfish little (and big?) assholes with power and wealth, or “hope” that Google™, Microsoft™ and even Apple™ will suddenly start giving a shit about user/data privacy and security and stop profiting off data that isn’t theirs to have.

Anyway… Hope is IMO not the answer. If you want to change something, actions speak louder than words.

@eaplmx@twtxt.net If I may… I think @abucci@anthony.buc.ci has a what we call a “morale outrage” against ChatGPT and all things hyped up in the AI field. And rightfully so, as I believe this is part of @abucci@anthony.buc.ci field of study/work? 🤔 – I can totally see why to, with AI not even being remotely close to my field, I can understand his point of view and I agree with it.

All the *GPT things and AI (of late) are just super “hyped up”. Too many people are thinking (abd believing) that’s a wonderful magical “silver bullet” that will solve all the world’s problems (wrong). The hype probably exists (mostly?) because there’s going to be a lot of “products” and “services” built on this *GPT (shit) and we’re either going to be a) forced to use it or b) ripped off in some way.

That’s the nature of a capitalist world economy (one which IMO has become quite a hockey stick as we call it, extreme).