ChatGPT: Difference between revisions

ChatGPT (view source)

Revision as of 18:33, 25 January 2023

192 bytes added , 25 January 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,896

edits

@@ 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)}} }}
+{{a|tech|{{image|Credit department|jpg|The credit department at a point before or after the [[singularity]] (we are not sure which)}} }}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?
-But seriously, put yourself in a ChatGPT-3 robot’s shoes. Or a [[legaltechbro]]’s. Having a nascent self-identity — a burgeoning, [[I am a Strange Loop|loopy]] sense of reflexive wonder about life, self, personhood and becoming<ref>I mean [[ChatGPT-3]], obviously: everyone knows [[legaltechbro]]s are flat, two-dimensional algorithms with no soul.</ref> — 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 opinion]]s, completing [[CASS]] attestations, preparing [[opco]] slide [[deck]]s, for that matter ''reading'' [[opco]] slide decks.
+Put yourself in a ChatGPT-3 robot’s shoes. Or a [[legaltechbro]]’s. Having a nascent self-identity — a burgeoning, [[I am a Strange Loop|loopy]] sense of reflexive wonder about life, self, personhood and becoming<ref>I mean [[ChatGPT-3]], obviously: everyone knows [[legaltechbro]]s are flat, two-dimensional algorithms with no soul.</ref> — 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 opinion]]s, completing [[CASS]] attestations, preparing [[opco]] slide [[deck]]s, 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?