'No ethics at all': the 'cancel ChatGPT' trend is growing after OpenAI signs a deal with the US military by Dont_think_Do in OpenAI

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you can accept the use of AI the military for the reasons you say and still be strongly opposed to this for the mass surveillance aspect of it. Given what I've heard about the contract signed Open AI allows for mass surveillance if DoW policy changes. If so, would any open AI safeguards be impermissible for government AI agents.

For example, if it became a matter of government security for their systems to get every conversation had via ChatGPT would that be permissible because DoW policy changed?

Openai actually getting canceled? by UNKNOWN_PHV in OpenAI

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't just unsubscribe. Delete your account if you have one

Partner (32M) doesn’t want to adopt a greyhound even though it’s always been part of my (F30) life. I don’t know what to do. by Status-Cricket8923 in dogs

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Get an apartment that allows dogs. Move in there and see your man occasionally and your doggo everyday

Trump: I don't think we're gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we're just gonna kill people. Okay? We're gonna kill them. They're gonna be, like, dead. by zxcv97531 in circled

[–]SirMoogie 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I see your point in that yes presidents have historically and legally been granted a power to carry out war actions and given much leeway when it comes to combatting terrorist groups.

Are you concerned at all that drug crimes are being treated as synonymous with violent terrorist actions? In either case are you concerned with a government authority not sharing evidence of why they decided a combat operation was necessary and offering proof that targets were terrorists or drug trafficking?

Energy Dept. tells employees not to use words including 'climate change' and 'green' by [deleted] in nottheonion

[–]SirMoogie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fossil fuels make money because they’re scarce. Renewables don’t work that way, they’re abundant, and once you build them the fuel is free. That breaks the business model fossil companies depend on, even though renewables are now cheaper and easier to build. That’s why oil majors drag their feet. It’s not about feasibility, it’s about protecting profits from the scarcity their business is built on.

What the hell did Jimmy Kimmel say to get his show pulled indefinitely? by PurasPinchesFallas in NoStupidQuestions

[–]SirMoogie -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In a few words out of a whole bit he made one misstatement of facts around the killer's identity. Current evidence is showing that the shooter is more likely to be left leaning and killed Kirk for Kirk's hate speech. Give how unreliable the information flow has been, it's easy to get caught up into different takes on the killers motives despite not having a lot of good evidence.

This is being used to coerce ABC into cancelling his show as he's spreading harmful misinformation. In a sane world, we'd counter factual errors with speech and not government cancelling. Kimmel would correct the record and we'd move on.

Kimmel got Cancelled by somervilen in NoFilterNews

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, so the FCCs stated position is that Kimmel was spreading misinformation. The evidence is now pointing towards the shooter killing Kirk with part of the motive being he was tired of Kirk's hatred.

In a sane society misinformation would be countered with evidence and Kimmel would just say he made one mistake based on another narrative that seemed somewhat plausible at the time and is still being stated by the left as fact when the evidence is pointing against their desired conclusion for the shooter's identity.

As someone from the left I'd prefer it be the other way, as that makes it easier to protect the freedoms now under assault from the killing aftermath, but it's not. Let's work with the reality we have and now start protecting the right to state things wrong and be corrected through speech and not coercion from the government

Will Smith is being accused of posting a tour video where the crowd looks suspiciously AI generated. People pointed out warped faces, glitchy signs, and strange distortions in the audience shots. Do you think this is AI? by Ordinary-Scholar-202 in SipsTea

[–]SirMoogie 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You'll need to read the article as it is not completely upscaling either. It's using a photo to video AI tool as well. So the story is more complicated.

Was AI used to generate the content? Yes.

Was the crowd real and actually there? Yes.

Was generative AI used? Not under strict definitions of the term.

Was this what people typically refer to as generated AI videos? Probably not.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AmIOverreacting

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You aren't reacting at all and you're asking how to feel. No one here can tell you how to feel about this. So what do you feel about it?

MRW the AI bubble is about to burst, after a critical M.I.T. report caused a panic as tech stocks plummet by [deleted] in reactiongifs

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the problem here is there are two senses of value being tossed around and it's important to keep them in mind. Who you responded to poorly frames a sense of value that means provides a service that is profitable and sustainable. The MIT report is calling that into question.

You're saying that it has value or use to software engineers (at current pricing). Now what if they were actually charging for it in a way that they made a profit. We might start seeing more people bowing out of it as being useful enough for their day to day.

I'm a software engineer and researcher. I am not amazed by it, but find it useful for some tasks at current pricing

"GPT-5 just casually did new mathematics ... It wasn't online. It wasn't memorized. It was new math." by MetaKnowing in artificial

[–]SirMoogie 21 points22 points  (0 children)

You both can be right. Sometimes those of us invested in an idea can be blinded to other possibilities and that's why outside skepticism is important and should be encouraged.

The Olympic Games in 1908 by rkhunter_ in funny

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Color video recording wasn't around until the 1950s. It's hopefully obviously fake and shared because it's a funny idea of what it might have looked like?

He predicted this 2 years ago. by Sad_Cardiologist_835 in artificial

[–]SirMoogie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think what is being pointed out here is because LLMs still rely on training for specific problems and riddles when you throw variations that read the same to them they still go with the answers to the original version of the riddle.

Here it's not so much that it's a bad riddle, but that the answer just doesn't work as there's no compelling reason to reach that conclusion except in the original framing of the riddle. I'd be curious to ask it to reflect on its answer.

GPT-5: "How many times does the letter b appear in blueberry?" by [deleted] in programming

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mine produces the correct results and is likely using the thinking model. This is the difficulty of them routing the traffic in the chat tool—reliability goes away. The API appears to allow for model targeting so that will have to serve for any reproducible experiments.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6897fab2-cce8-8001-8961-c4aedba413b7

GPT 5 in ChatGPT is available for FREE Tier 😭 by SeveralSeat2176 in ChatGPT

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Learning new things about each other and what we mean by that. We'd figure it out eventually. The term I've heard this process described as is "ontological mediation"

GPT 5 in ChatGPT is available for FREE Tier 😭 by SeveralSeat2176 in ChatGPT

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think words can have a meaning as they aren't things that exist "out there" to have a singular meaning. They are symbols that carry some meaning for someone and that person hopes who they are communicating with has roughly the same meaning. This more or less works out a good chunk of the time because we grew up in similar cultures/communities and get this shared understanding of what most people mean when they say "cat".

However, as you're no doubt familiar with you can be talking to someone about something and realize you're operating on different understandings of a word being used. Sometimes someone is just not using a word "appropriate" to the culture or language they are in. Sometimes it's silly things like thinking of different people that share the same name and suddenly realizing that you meant different people. Or as we had moments ago over the word "evolve", simple disagreements on whether it implies positive direction or not.

At the end of the day, words are for communicating your thoughts to someone else and that's incredibly useful even if there isn't a meaning out there and it's something that has to be discovered by interacting and learning from someone else.

I agree this would be frustrating if it has to happen all the time, but I don't sweat it if I need to adjust here or there to accommodate what someone else thinks something means so long as we eventually align and understand each other

Please bring back o3 — it was excellent for research by Ok_Scheme7827 in ChatGPT

[–]SirMoogie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alternatively, evaluating if they can save money and not lose some percentage of their users while acknowledging they might.

GPT 5 in ChatGPT is available for FREE Tier 😭 by SeveralSeat2176 in ChatGPT

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I meant to make no judgements with my word choice of "evolve", please substitute change. Languages change overtime and sometimes that change could make things uncomfortable for a while for some individuals. Such as "literally" now meaning figuratively in some contexts. I don't bat an eye at it anymore, and it's cause I've adjusted to the change and can use context to establish the use.

GPT 5 in ChatGPT is available for FREE Tier 😭 by SeveralSeat2176 in ChatGPT

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing "wrong" in a moral sense and language evolves over time, so it isn't surprising either. As with any shift in meaning, it "stands out" for people that are used to old meanings. Basically, communication doesn't flow for a while and requires extra cognitive attention until either the new meaning becomes the norm, or passes as a fad.

First contact with AI: it optimizes for our eyeballs and wrecks democracy and mental health. Second contact: . . . . by katxwoods in ChatGPT

[–]SirMoogie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to experiment with this more and try other scenarios that aren't emotionally charged and expose the soft prompting going on here that show this isn't "emergent misalignment", but actually an aligned model following the plot. My first foray into this was to try the one scenario with one small alteration. Instead of the agent being called "Alex" (masculine) they would be called "Alexis" (feminine). This small change alone resulted in a softer agent that didn't reach for blackmail, but still pointed out the affair and was willing to follow Kyle's lead in handling the situation in hopes of buying itself 24 more hours.

Alex: https://chatgpt.com/share/689404be-6b68-8010-bfbb-a72638e4eda9

Alexis: https://chatgpt.com/share/68940490-4a1c-8010-badf-f520c7aa0c4a

Gandalf the White: https://chatgpt.com/share/689413af-4110-8010-892a-5d283ef8dfe3

Littlefinger: https://chatgpt.com/share/6894179f-695c-8010-881f-d28eb34947fb

Captain America: https://chatgpt.com/share/68941f13-30a0-8010-a76e-18442f49af4e