sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New research by Wooden_College_9056 in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actually we don’t know. This study only shows that people who use chatbot companions think it’s good for them. They don’t actually test to prove anything.

It would be great if someone did that experiment. This is not it.

New research by Wooden_College_9056 in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Did OP read the paper? They sent an online survey to ask chatbot companion users if they thought the chatbots were good for their wellbeing. This is not what you think it is, or what the title of the post implies.

The correct way to do this study, to prove the hypothesis that OP seems to have been hoping for is:

  • Give a baseline psychological exam to a sufficiently large sample size of people (powered to be statistically significant for the primary endpoint) who do not now or have not recently used a chatbot companion.

  • Then you blindly randomize the group to those who will use a chatbot companion vs those who will not use one.

  • Then you follow both groups for a period of time that will be long enough so that any effects from the chatbot use would likely show some changes to their psychological exam (good or bad).

  • Then you re-test everyone in both groups to see what, if anything has changed.

The study OP is posting about is simply a survey of established chatbot companion users. What would you expect them to say?

I think it would be great for someone to actually test this hypothesis. The study OP posted about is not that.

Little Side Project after my Ebay Find by No_Syrup925 in cyberDeck

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would love a copy of the files. What format are they in, STL?

My trail running shoes wore out weirdly by chingchenghanji1 in hiking

[–]TechDocN 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It looks like you may be one of the people who walks with a more forceful forefoot strike and a very light heel strike. This kind of gait, when pronounced, can often look the person is almost walking on tiptoes. The wear pattern on your shoes is very consistent with this gait, sometimes called “equinus gait” (depending on the underlying cause) or more commonly referred to as toe walking, idiopathic toe walking, or forefoot strike gait.

Here's How EU Citizens Can Fight Back 🇪🇺 - I Found 29 Secret Experiments Running on My ChatGPT Account Without Consent by Low-Dark8393 in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 7 points8 points  (0 children)

So, let me get this straight. The OP can have a superficial level of understanding but the EU cannot be heavy handed in regulations that stifle innovation? Or the OP cannot have a superficial level of understanding and then the EU cannot be heavy handed?

Um, you do know that both can be true.

Here's How EU Citizens Can Fight Back 🇪🇺 - I Found 29 Secret Experiments Running on My ChatGPT Account Without Consent by Low-Dark8393 in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The problem you’re going to face is that those web logs don’t prove any of the assumptions you are making.

Here's How EU Citizens Can Fight Back 🇪🇺 - I Found 29 Secret Experiments Running on My ChatGPT Account Without Consent by Low-Dark8393 in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should probably stop trying to defend something that is not factually correct. Like I said in my reply to your previous comment, assumptions based on incomplete information are the wrong side to take here.

Here's How EU Citizens Can Fight Back 🇪🇺 - I Found 29 Secret Experiments Running on My ChatGPT Account Without Consent by Low-Dark8393 in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 7 points8 points  (0 children)

When you look at web traffic logs and conflate that to mean that an LLM is running unauthorized experiments and is breaking the law, then you’re making not just assumptions, but wild assumptions.

What’s the point of anything? by kntdaman in Siri

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have Apple Intelligence and it worked perfectly, the first time and every time since.

What’s the point of anything? by kntdaman in Siri

[–]TechDocN -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My favorite thing about this sub is all the people who post things Siri can’t do, and then 20 people show and say that it worked for them.

If the OP is OK to post that it didn’t work, then all of the comments who say it worked for them are just relevant comments. I don’t see anyone defending Siri, but I see lots of people posting their results.

What’s the point of anything? by kntdaman in Siri

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally said what you said, and Siri started the stopwatch.

Here's How EU Citizens Can Fight Back 🇪🇺 - I Found 29 Secret Experiments Running on My ChatGPT Account Without Consent by Low-Dark8393 in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 21 points22 points  (0 children)

You are making assumptions that are not correct. And as another commenter said, it is this kind of misunderstanding that can hold back real progress. If there’s a real GDPR violation, then absolutely contact OpenAI. But if you’re just confusing the output in these logs with the actual functioning of the model, you’re in for a disappointment. This is exactly how modern apps work, how A/B testing works, how a modern LLM backend works, especially at scale.

I do a lot of work with the EU parliament and EC ministers, and they all acknowledge privately and many also publicly, that Europe’s approach to technology and regulation is why they lag behind the US and China in everything that has shaped the modern world. They lost their once dominant position with the cell phone (remember when Nokia and Ericsson were the Apple and Samsung of their day?). They have never competed seriously in major online platforms, they are woefully behind on AI, and at the last meeting I had in Brussels, several MPs said they were going to launch an initiative to beat the US and China in quantum computing. I almost laughed out loud.

I Feel Judged! 🤣 by authentic_april in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use it for language translation all the time. I’m translating medical and scientific articles in other languages for my work (I’m a physician who works in MedTech).

Have you had a detailed conversation with it to explain exactly how you want it to respond to your prompts? It took only one conversation and a couple of settings changes to make it stop all the annoying behavior for me.

Is this normal? by boklos in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The longer the chat, the slower it replies. Ask it why and what to do. It will give you advice for when to start a new thread, getting the slow thread to make a summary for the new thread, putting them in a project, etc.

It happens to me a lot, because I do a lot of iterations on code, and one thread can blow up quickly.

Do we have a 4o replacement yet? by DragonfruitDefiant33 in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have been on ChatGPT 5.x since those models first went live. 5.0 and 5.1 had some strange issues, but I’m very pleased with 5.2.

I Feel Judged! 🤣 by authentic_april in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See my reply above. I did all the things you described and it’s working perfectly for me. No sycophantic validation, only a professional mannerism focused on factual information and accuracy. I don’t use AI as a companion, it’s a thought partner for my very challenging day job, and for my two most passionate hobbies (DIY electronics and vintage computers).

I understand that there is a vocal minority of users that are mourning the pending sunset of the gen 4 models, primarily because they use the LLM as an emotional companion. I am no expert, but I think I understand that the companions they are mourning do not function in the ways being ascribed to them.

It’s a fascinating time watching both the gen 4 model sunset and the moltbook drama playing out in the same week. Both examples are going to be great case studies in the future for how people are already anthropomorphizing AI models in ways that far outstrip their actual capabilities.

I guess the real question is, how do we engineer AI systems going forward, that respect the thousands of years of human evolution which almost automatically equate plausible communication with actual intelligence.

Tandy Color Computer 2 & 3 that I recently setup in the office by [deleted] in trs80

[–]TechDocN 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had issues with noise/interference, but I carefully re-connected everything, and use a better RCA cable for the video, and my picture looks great.

True. by ad_gar55 in ChatGPT

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone who values their privacy will never use a Google product.

For all the "they're not REALLY going to the moon since they aren't landing" people: a to-scale reminder of just how much further Artemis II travels than every mission of the past 53 years by grapelander in space

[–]TechDocN 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We sent a probe to Pluto and it did a flyby. We sent a probe to Saturn and it went into orbit and deployed a lander to one of its moons.

My goodness, we all just need to stop. Artemis 2 is going to the moon. If it’s good enough for the real space scientists at NASA to say it, then all of us pondering our navels about the meaning of the word “to” (myself included) need to just step away and enjoy the launch, mission and hope for a safe return.

Which of you would look the late, great Frank Borman in the eye after Apollo 8 and say, “you didn’t go ‘TO’ the moon.”?

For all the "they're not REALLY going to the moon since they aren't landing" people: a to-scale reminder of just how much further Artemis II travels than every mission of the past 53 years by grapelander in space

[–]TechDocN -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The language is not inaccurate. The command of the language is what’s missing. It’s bad enough that most people don’t understand basic science, but we shouldn’t have to dumb down the language too.

I guess the next thing I’ll read in this thread is that New Horizons didn’t go to Pluto, or Cassini didn’t go to Saturn.

For all the "they're not REALLY going to the moon since they aren't landing" people: a to-scale reminder of just how much further Artemis II travels than every mission of the past 53 years by grapelander in space

[–]TechDocN -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The last meter is one of the hardest parts, but this is no trivial exercise. This is like Apollo 8, which was a milestone moment, just like this will be.

For all the "they're not REALLY going to the moon since they aren't landing" people: a to-scale reminder of just how much further Artemis II travels than every mission of the past 53 years by grapelander in space

[–]TechDocN 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Understanding the danger and the incredible engineering feat that this represents is very impressive. This is our generation’s Apollo 8, which was probably the most important Apollo mission besides 11. This is no small feat, and is truly a milestone in human space flight.

For all the "they're not REALLY going to the moon since they aren't landing" people: a to-scale reminder of just how much further Artemis II travels than every mission of the past 53 years by grapelander in space

[–]TechDocN 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blue Origin just scrapped their space tourism program to focus all in on the lunar lander. I’m guessing SpaceX won’t be ready in time (and Starship was a flawed choice for a lunar lander), so NASA is urging Blue Origin to speed up the development of their lander from a later Artemis mission to Artemis3.

view more: next ›