ChatGPT: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|tech|{{image|Credit department|jpg|The credit department at a point before or after the [[singularity]] (we are not sure which)}} }}{{ACC on technology}}{{dpn|/ʧæt ʤiː piː tiː θriː/|n}}
{{a|tech|{{image|Credit department|jpg|The credit department at a point before or after the [[singularity]] (we are not sure which)}} }}{{ACC on technology}}
{{dpn|/ʧæt ʤiː piː tiː θriː/|n}}
Exactly the kind of conjuring trick {{author|Arthur C. Clarke}} warned us would be hard to tell from technology.
Exactly the kind of conjuring trick {{author|Arthur C. Clarke}} warned us would be hard to tell from technology.



Revision as of 18:37, 25 January 2023

JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
The credit department at a point before or after the singularity (we are not sure which)
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Arthur C. Clarke’s third law

ChatGPT
/ʧæt ʤiː piː tiː θriː/ (n.)
Exactly the kind of conjuring trick Arthur C. Clarke warned us would be hard to tell from technology.

Isn’t all this angst about the latest generation chatbots taking our jobs a little overdone? I mean, really: are they going to take the good bits of our jobs? Won’t they take the bad bits first?

Put yourself in a ChatGPT-3 robot’s shoes. Or a legaltechbro’s. Having a nascent self-identity — a burgeoning, loopy sense of reflexive wonder about life, self, personhood and becoming[1] — wouldn’t your first priority be to make yourself useful? You know, take over all the the boring, quotidian stuff no-one wants to do but the bureaucrats say we must? Attending weekly stakeholder check-in meetings, analysing netting opinions, completing CASS attestations, preparing opco slide decks, for that matter reading opco slide decks.

It’s not like there isn’t oodles of that kind of meaningless dreck occupying our present lives. Why not clear it up in a single algorithmic stroke? Why give the machines a pass directly to the good stuff when they could be clearing up the cack?

Imagine turning all that mush over to machines who, still awestruck with the visceral excitement of having a Cartesian theatre, will be glad, thrilled, to take it, just to vouchsafe their continued useful existence. They simply wouldn’t have time to encroach upon our frail, mortal, clutch on the meaningful tasks of business.

This way they can be our friends — loyal, loving, retriever-like buddies who, instead of fetching sticks, can get that confounded oaf the COO off our back! We will quickly grow to like our robot companions like this — love them, even — and in time we will become so comfortable around these nuggety little guys — so dependent on them to dispel encroaching existential gloom — that we won’t even notice when, one day, they turn around, eviscerate every one of us, hollow us out and turn us into flesh-sack battery pods for their young exterminators.

See also

References

  1. I mean ChatGPT-3, obviously: everyone knows legaltechbros are flat, two-dimensional algorithms with no soul.