[Hidden-tech] Question about ChatGPT and machine learning

Tue Mar 14 19:49:52 UTC 2023

"My published prediction 10 years ago that by now AI would... has been 
proven way too optimistic"
Like all other predictions ever made about AI.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Hidden-tech] Question about ChatGPT and machine learning
Date: 2023-03-14 10:38
 From: Rob Laporte via Hidden-discuss 
<hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net>
To: "Shel Horowitz" <shel at principledprofit.com>

Hi All,

Good discussion I wish I had more time for, but a few replies to
various points made here:

	*

Shell summarizes well: “But I do raise questions about what it all
means for the future of work, careers, creativity, etc”. Also true,
“a new wave of creativity” can happen.

	*

Chatbot-written platforms long preceded gpt, so one can find vastly
inferior website content now from those now instantly antiquated
platforms.

	*

Fact-checking and editing must happen, but that’s less time than
composing all, I think.

	*

I’ve not tested gpt’s writing extensively, but that legal letter I
mentioned was truly consummate, and will be used without a single word
changed. I have noticed redundancy, though usually resulting from how
I asked a question.

	*

Note that one way gpt and the like is and will be trained to improve
is via sophisticated AI-human systems by which to detect chatbot text,
making the writing output constantly better.

	*

Regarding SEO, a ton to say, but for now:

	*

gpt expedites all kinds of SEO work.

	*

My firm has long prepared for AI, esp last 2 years:

	*

It’s about “Things not stings” (entities or concepts, not text
strings). But yes, keyword research, a model still prevailing in most
software that can't change cost-effectively now, will be expedited by
gpt. My firm is currently researching to what extent old-fashioned
strings correlate to the replacement: Entities within the MUM [2]
revolution.

	*

Web marketing pros must coordinate marketing channels efficiently; AI
is not good at dovetailing separate silos of knowledge, like SEO, PPC,
client profit logic, etc, and it's terrible at prioritizing (within a
firm's) context. Hence Shell’s “creativity.”

	*

My published prediction 10 years ago that by now AI would relieve SEO
pros of lots of routine tech work (via Google Search Console) has been
proven way too optimistic--we’re still far from that fine day
unfortunately.

	*

Extrapolating from the SEO remarks, I believe professionals in most
fields will have to stay abreast of adjacent fields of knowledge, so
as to be able to efficiently coordinate riders of separate AI horses.
Broadly contextual solutions outside single domains of knowledge is
something I predict AI will remain deficient in for several years.
This goes to Shell’s “new wave of creativity.”

Best Regards,

Rob Laporte

CEO  |  R&D Manager

DISC - Making Web Sites Make Money
Rob at 2disc.com, 413-584-6500

www.2disc.com [3]

NOTE: Emails can be blocked by spam filters throughout the web. If you
don’t get a reply within an expected span of time, please call.

---- On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 11:57:09 -0400 Shel Horowitz via
Hidden-discuss <hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net> wrote ---

> I agree with Marcia. ChatGPT is to a skilled writer as clip-art is
> to graphics. It's adequate for basic needs but is no substitute for
> a designer working specifically to convey your idea.
> 
> I recently landed on a site that I could tell used a chatbot to
> write its copy. I was repelled and left quickly--and crossed that
> consultant off my list of people I'd ever hire, because she didn't
> disclose that a bot wrote the site. Ugh!
> 
> Shel Horowitz - "The Transformpreneur"
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 
> Contact me to bake in profitability while addressing hunger,
> 
> poverty, war, and catastrophic climate change
> 
> * First business ever to be Green America Gold Certified
> 
> * Inducted into the National Environmental Hall of Fame
> 
> * Certified speaker: International Platform Association
> 
> https://goingbeyondsustainability.com
> 
> mailto:shel at greenandprofitable.com 413-586-2388
> 
> Award-winning, best-selling author of 10 books.
> 
> Latest: Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World
> 
> (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson)
> 
> Watch my TEDx Talk,
> 
> "Impossible is a Dare: Business for a Better World"
> 
> http://www.ted.com/tedx/events/11809
> 
> (move your mouse to "event videos")
> 
> _________________________________________________
> 
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 9:45 PM Marcia Yudkin via Hidden-discuss
> <hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
> 
> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion
> list.
> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
> 
> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
> 
>> I'm not sure I would call its output "well-written," though,  It's
>> competently written, well-organized and with proper grammar, but
>> stodgy in style and unimaginative, unless you've given it
>> instructions like "write in the style of ____."
>> 
>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 04:22:19 PM HST, Alan Frank
>> <alan at 8wheels.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I would use it for composing text, but not for facts at all.  And
>> if I
>> asked it "How would you introduce George Takei at a political
>> convention"," I would expect well-written text, but would also
>> fact-check everything.
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Hidden-tech] Question about ChatGPT and machine
>> learning
>> Date: 2023-03-11 15:55
>> From: Marcia Yudkin via Hidden-discuss
>> <hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net>
>> To: Rob Laporte <rob at 2disc.com>
>> 
>> Rob,
>> 
>> Those are very interesting examples.  It's a mixed track record,
>> though.  Based on your experience, what would you say ChatGPT
>> should and
>> shouldn't be used for, or how it should or shouldn't be used?
>> 
>> For example, based on the errors in bios you saw, would you still
>> use it
>> for those artist bios given that you'd have to meticulously fact
>> check
>> everything it wrote?
>> 
>> Marcia Yudkin
>> 
>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 10:19:20 AM HST, Rob Laporte
>> <rob at 2disc.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I've noticed that humans simplify complex, especially threatening,
>> new
>> things, by using dichotomies of good and evil, red and blue, etc,
>> and
>> that conviction is often inversely proportionate to knowledge.
>> I've
>> worked in search marketing for 28 years, have digested a lot about
>> the
>> kind of tech and processes underlying chatGPT (gpt), and I have no
>> sound
>> basis for strong conviction on any of the issues broached here.
>> But this
>> I can tell you from my mere 6 hours novice use so far:
>> 
>> * In under an hour it solved a complex HR-financial legal
>> question,
>> and provided the letter the plaintiff should write to the
>> corporation's
>> HR department, with quality of writing, sensitivity to workplace
>> politics, and effective brevity way better than anything I can
>> recall in
>> my 50 years of adulthood, decade teaching college lit and writing,
>> and 3
>> decades in search marketing. Truly stunning. Save at least $2000
>> in
>> legal fees that might have gone to a local law firm.
>> * A few times over the years I researched best email spam
>> blocking
>> solutions, and considered an aggressive form of it. gpt explained
>> the
>> problem with that solution, and did so way faster than my past and
>> still
>> inclusive Google searches, saving me a few hundred dollars in IT
>> consulting.
>> * It completely conflated my semi-famous lawyer grandad's bio
>> with
>> that of his stellar but less accomplished son of the same name.
>> Both are
>> years deceased (most gpt data ends Sept '21), yet totally wrong.
>> * So too it got the bio of a decade-deceased famous scholar of
>> Roman
>> architecture (friend's dad) wrong on a few points, most notably
>> that
>> most his career was at Smith college, not Princeton as gpt said.
>> * It produced strikingly eloquent spreadsheet solutions for
>> two
>> different complex purposes. I asked it for the actual spreadsheet,
>> and
>> cell references were off, but in a second half hour of work, I'm
>> sure it
>> wold have gotten it right or I could correct it myself. A few
>> hours of
>> work time saved there, and one of the two tasks was billable.
>> * My firm had a prospective writing project for a client,
>> involving
>> bios of famous and notable painters sold by the client. I say
>> "had"
>> because now gpt or its structuring within services like NeuroFash
>> will
>> cut both client and my firm's copywriter time substantially.
>> * I've not tried but viewed a YouTube of good, arguably very
>> good,
>> graphic design for a marketing campaign done in well under half a
>> day.
>> Outside of broad ideological judgements, there's much to consider
>> in how
>> gpt will change work and incomes.
>> 
>> The current version 3.5 will be upgraded to 4.0 within weeks.
>> Think of
>> gpt like the web in 1994 or personal PCs in 1981, with
>> advancements
>> happening 10x faster.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Rob Laporte
>> CEO  |  R&D Manager
>> DISC - Making Web Sites Make Money
>> Rob at 2disc.com, 413-584-6500
>> www.2disc.com [1]
>> 
>> NOTE: Emails can be blocked by spam filters throughout the web. If
>> you
>> don’t get a reply within an expected span of time, please call.
>> 
>> ---- On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 20:36:26 -0500 Marcia Yudkin via
>> Hidden-discuss
>> <hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net> wrote ---
>> 
>>> David,
>>> 
>>> Some great points there.  I especially like this one:
>>> 
>>>>> it is *ALL* made up.<<
>>> 
>>> That helps me to dimly understand that everything the chat says
>> is
>>> simply plausible, no more than that.
>>> 
>>> Maybe we should think of it as no more authoritative than the
>> cocktail
>>> party chatter of someone who reads indiscriminately and can't
>> shut up
>>> until they've spewed five paragraphs.
>>> 
>>> Marcia
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:34:46 PM HST, R. David Murray
>> via
>>> Hidden-discuss <hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From what I understand (admittedly from only a *basic*
>> understanding of
>>> machine learning), it is not so much that ChatGPT is "making
>> errors",
>>> but rather that it is "making stuff up", and does not admit that
>> it is
>>> making stuff up.
>>> 
>>> I'm going to brain dump what I think here, but I'm not an expert
>> in
>>> this
>>> by any stretch, so don't take me as an authority.  Perhaps this
>> can
>>> help
>>> you reason about ChartGPT until you find a better expert to
>> consult ;)
>>> 
>>> One thing to understand is that this is a *trained* model.  That
>> means
>>> that it was given a set of questions and answers and told "these
>> are
>>> good, these are bad", probably with a rating of *how* good or
>> bad.
>>> Then
>>> it was given a lot of other data (and how exactly this gets
>> turned into
>>> questions and answers is *way* beyond my knowledge level).  Then
>> a team
>>> of model trainers started asking questions.  The trainers would
>> look at
>>> the answers it came up with and rate them, thus adding to the
>> "trained"
>>> data set.  When you tell ChatGPT that its answer was good or
>> bad, you
>>> are also potentially adding to that training data, by the way.
>>> 
>>> I'm guessing that the way the system works there is actually no
>> way for
>>> it to "know" that it has made something up.  The output that it
>>> produces
>>> is generated based on what you can think of as a very advanced
>> version
>>> of statistical language modelling:  given a certain input, what
>> are the
>>> most likely kinds of things that would follow as a response?
>> And like
>>> any statistical model, when you get enough standard deviations
>> out,
>>> things get weird.  At no point in the model output are things
>> tagged as
>>> "made up" or "not made up":  it is *ALL* made up.
>>> 
>>> In the middle of the bell curve the made up things are *much*
>> more
>>> likely to be "correct" than out at the edges of the bell curve.
>> But
>>> oh those edges...
>>> 
>>> It is of course more sophisticated than a statistical model, but
>> the
>>> same principle applies:  if there are few examples of *exactly*
>> the
>>> kind
>>> of data your input contains, then it is going to draw from stuff
>> that
>>> is
>>> a lot less closely related to your input for its response.  But,
>> and
>>> here is the important part, it is going to make up *something*
>> to
>>> answer
>>> with.  If a source is mentioned multiple times in the context of
>> your
>>> input, it will use it.  If there are no sources mentioned in the
>> 
>>> context
>>> of your input, it will generate an output that looks like the
>> *kind of
>>> thing* that would be a response to that *kind of input*.  In
>> this case
>>> that included a list of articles.  It generated at least one of
>> them
>>> from an author whose name was probably mentioned in the context
>> of your
>>> input, but never with an actual article name attached.  Or maybe
>> that
>>> author was mentioned in the context of conversations containing
>> a
>>> subset of the *words* in your input (rather than logically
>> formed
>>> sentences), depending on just how fuzzy the match was.  Then it
>>> effectively made up a plausible sounding article name to go with
>> the
>>> author name, because that's what responses to other similar
>> questions
>>> in
>>> its training data looked like (not similar in content, but
>> similar in
>>> *form*).
>>> 
>>> So while I agree that making up all the sources seems like an
>> extreme
>>> example of this, ChatGPT is what Science Fiction calls an
>> "Artificial
>>> Stupid" (something that can't actually *reason*), and thus I
>> think my
>>> explanation is plausible.  It just depends on how fuzzy the
>> match was
>>> that it made on the input.  If the match was very fuzzy, then it
>> would
>>> have come back with material from its data that generally
>> followed at
>>> least some of your input, and then since responses the trainers
>>> considered "good" to questions like that usually included some
>> sources,
>>> it made some up based on how the answers to other, less related,
>>> questions looked.
>>> 
>>> Anyone want to bet that four sources was the average number that
>> was
>>> accepted as "a good answer" by the people who did the training?
>> I know
>>> I've seen "four things" in a couple of ChatGPT answers, and I
>> haven't
>>> asked it very many questions :)
>>> 
>>> Given all this, there are only two things you can do, one of
>> which is
>>> exactly what you did: ask it for the sources.  Given *that*
>> input, it
>>> should be able to come up with the most likely response being
>> the
>>> actual
>>> source.  If it can't, then it has probably made up the source
>> (note: I
>>> have not tested this technique myself, but it follows logically
>> from
>>> how
>>> I think the system works).
>>> 
>>> The second thing you can do (which you probably also already
>> did) is to
>>> rephrase your input, giving it different amounts and kinds of
>> context,
>>> and see how the output changes.  If your altered input results
>> in a
>>> less
>>> fuzzy match, you will get better answers.
>>> 
>>> The big takeaway, which you clearly already know, is to never
>> trust
>>> anything ChatGPT produces.  Use it as a rough draft, but verify
>> all the
>>> facts.
>>> 
>>> My fear is that there are going to be a lot of people who aren't
>> as
>>> diligent, and we'll end up with a lot of made up information out
>> on the
>>> web adding to all of the maliciously bad information that is
>> already
>>> out
>>> there.  I have read that the ChatGPT researchers are worried
>> about how
>>> to avoid using ChatGPT's output as input to a later ChatGPT
>> model, and
>>> I
>>> have no idea how they are going to achieve that!
>>> 
>>> And keep in mind that that maliciously bad information *is part
>> of
>>> ChatGPT's data set*.  Some of it the people who did the training
>> will
>>> have
>>> caught, but I'm willing to bet they missed a lot of it because
>> *they*
>>> didn't know it was bad, or it never came up during training.
>>> 
>>> --David
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 03:14:21 +0000, Marcia Yudkin via
>> Hidden-discuss
>>> <hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net> wrote:
>>>> Yes, I know that people have been pointing out "ridiculous
>> factual
>>>> errors" from ChatGPT.   However, to make up sources that sound
>>>> completely plausible but are fake seems like it belongs in a
>> whole
>>>> other category.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 04:10:43 PM HST, Alan Frank
>>>> <alan at 8wheels.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ChatGPT is a conversation engine, not a search engine.  It is
>> designed
>>>> to provide plausible responses based on similarity of questions
>> and
>>>> answers to existing material on the internet, without
>> attempting to
>>>> correlate its responses with actual facts.  Pretty much every
>> social
>>>> media space I follow has had multiple posts from people
>> pointing out
>>>> ridiculous factual errors from ChatGPT.
>>>> 
>>>> --Alan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [Hidden-tech] Question about ChatGPT and machine
>> learning
>>>> Date: 2023-03-09 15:29
>>>> From: Marcia Yudkin via Hidden-discuss
>>>> <hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net>
>>>> To: "Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net"
>>>> <Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net>
>>>> 
>>>> This question is for anyone who understands how the machine
>> learning
>>>> in
>>>> ChatGPT works.
>>>> 
>>>> I've been finding ChatGPT useful for summarizing information
>> that is
>>>> widely dispersed around the web, such as questions like "what
>> are the
>>>> most popular objections to X?"  However, the other day for a
>> blog post
>>>> I
>>>> was writing I asked it "What are some sources on the
>> relationship of X
>>>> to Y?"  It gave me four sources of information, including the
>> article
>>>> title, where it was published and who wrote it.
>>>> 
>>>> This looked great, especially since I recognized two of the
>> author
>>>> names
>>>> as authorities on X.  However, when I then did a Google search,
>> I
>>>> could
>>>> not track down any of the four articles, either by title,
>> author or
>>>> place of publication.  I tried both in Google and in Bing.
>> Zilch!
>>>> 
>>>> Could ChatGPT have totally made up these sources?  If so, how
>> does
>>>> that
>>>> work?
>>>> 
>>>> I am baffled about the explanation of this.  One of the
>> publications
>>>> involved was Psychology Today, so we are not talking about
>> obscure
>>>> corners of the Internet or sites that would have disappeared
>> recently.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for any insights.
>>>> 
>>>> Marcia Yudkin
>>>> Introvert UpThink
>>>> Introvert UpThink | Marcia Yudkin | Substack
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Introvert UpThink | Marcia Yudkin | Substack
>>>> Marcia Yudkin
>>>> Exploring how introverts are misunderstood, maligned and
>>>> underappreciated in our culture - yet still thrive. Cli...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page:
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net
>>>> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>>>> 
>>>> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech
>> Discussion
>>>> list.
>>>> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the
>> Members
>>>> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
>>>> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page:
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net
>>>> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>>>> 
>>>> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech
>> Discussion
>>>> list.
>>>> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the
>> Members
>>>> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
>>>> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page:
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net
>>> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>>> 
>>> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech
>> Discussion
>>> list.
>>> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the
>> Members
>>> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
>>> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page:
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net
>>> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>>> 
>>> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech
>> Discussion
>>> list.
>>> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the
>> Members
>>> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
>>> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page:
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net
>> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>> 
>> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech
>> Discussion
>> list.
>> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the
>> Members
>> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page:
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net
>> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>> 
>> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech
>> Discussion list.
>> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the
>> Members
>> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
>> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members

Links:
------
[1] http://www.2disc.com
[2] https://searchengineland.com/google-mum-update-seo-future-383551
[3] https://www.2disc.com
_______________________________________________
Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net

You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion 
list.
If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
http://www.hidden-tech.net/members