To compare, a human-written Steve Jobs joke:
I remember the iRack bit. It seemed a bit off to me since i felt like there was no natural connection between Steve Jobs and the topic. I guess it's funny (a rare thing for MAD TV) but I guess it felt like it wasn't actually good satire, since good satire should say something about the actual content. Steve Job selling the Iraq War just didn't make sense as a concept I guess.Originally Posted by Starker
Chat GPT is bad at comedy. Every Seinfeld sketch I've asked it to generate is plausible, coherent, but lame (comedy level: 1950's)
I thought it was a great piece of satire because you could take a few different angles with it besides making fun of how the Bush administration sold the war. It makes you wonder how far people will follow a charismatic leader in the wrong direction before questioning it. What if Bush was as popular as Steve Jobs, would we all have cheered the war on like we did with Afghanistan? It's also a lesson, to apply the skills you've developed as a consumer to recognize shrewd salesmen in government.
Well I think the Steve Jobs one turned out ok, but to get that I really had to hammer ChatGPT over the head about what bit goes where, not to give away the punchline instantly, and the correct tone to maintain throughout the piece. So I more or less worked out the entire structure, how it flows etc, but got ChatGPT to glue the words together and write filler.
As for recent efforts, an Indian guy was asking about Indian jokes, because he tried to gen those and got ones about American Indians. He also asked it "write a joke about Indians" and got really bad jokes. But to show the important of context cues, here's something I generated in a single prompt, no regenning or reprompts. You get much higher quality content by creating context:
https://pastebin.com/p59m3neR
There are actually some ideas that land in there. This shows at least that quite a lot of it comes down to writing decent prompts.
---
EDIT: I also had a quick idea just now a put that through ChatGPT. I got it to help me with marketing an unmarketable product, but with an excessive amount of disclaimers:
---"Introducing Maggoty Meats, the premium smoke meat company with a name that's as bold as our flavors. But don't let the name fool you, our meats are anything but maggoty. We want to assure our customers that there are no maggots in our meats or in our production process. We take great pride in using only the freshest and highest quality cuts of meat that are slow-smoked to perfection using our unique blend of spices and smoking techniques. Our meats are inspected and certified by the USDA to ensure they meet the highest standards of food safety. Our goal is to provide you with the most delicious and unique smoke meat experience, and we guarantee that our meats are maggot-free. Try Maggoty Meats today and taste the difference for yourself!"
"Maggoty Meats: Bold flavor, no maggots."
As for Seinfeld episodes, I'm not sure what level of prompts would improve the output in a similar way to the "Indian" thing I did above. I tried a few different things but i still have to keep reprompting the AI to change it, and it was up to me to find what was funny in it's ideas then basically tell it step by step how the ending should go. This was the final result, but rest assured anything remotely amusing in there were the ideas I got it to write:
https://pastebin.com/wmqx25ec
It kept wanting to write three unconnected plots then have "and then they all met up and Monk's cafe at the end to talk about their day" as the plots "intersecting". However after the example plot, I got it to write new plots, and now it at least understands that the A,B,C plot threads need to intersect in actual scenes. But it doesn't understand that it needs to also be funny.
Last edited by Cipheron; 21st Jan 2023 at 23:29.
With jokes, I think the biggest problem is that an AI right now, no matter how well trained, cannot consider context and cannot do anything beyond what it already knows. It doesn't create as much as copy and supply existing knowledge, kind of like a very sophisticated autocomplete feature. So when it comes to jokes, it can mimic a style by looking at existing material on Steve Jobs, it can use it to try to make fun of him in the same style other people have made fun of him, but it cannot really use a technoshamanistic figure like Jobs or Musk as a metaphor alluding to societal problems, because it doesn't have an "understanding" of neither the person nor the problems. It can only use what other people have written about them, because it cannot infer anything.
I recently happened to watch a conversation with Jon Favreau, one of Obama's speechwriters, and one of the points he made was that he didn't really know how to write speeches for Obama until he got to know him as a person. He could mimic the style, sure, but it would have been a ChatGPT level of failure without actually getting to know Obama and without Obama's involvement, collaboration, and Obama actually writing parts of the speech himself. Because good writing is about more than a particular style or structure or expressing an idea -- it's also about emotion and having a unique point of view and a set of experiences that nobody in the world but the writer can access.
Last edited by Starker; 22nd Jan 2023 at 12:30.
For comedy to work, you need to understand the culture you're presenting the intended comedy to. And the technology behind current "AI" is extremely far away from understanding cultural context, they're much closer to being search engines with a limited selection of context sensitive pointers.
While some people are saying that ChatGPT will level out skills in essay writing etc, with poor students able to push a button and get an elite-level essay, from what I'm seeing it's anything but that. There's going to be a digital divide based on people's ability to use this technology.
To put it bluntly, some people are thick as shit, and type stupid stuff into it, and aren't very good at layering logic and reasoning in ways to get around any limitations.
People are actually complaining that if they ask ChatGPT about fictional things, ChatGPT responds by pointing out that the thing they asked about is fictional so the question cannot be answered. At this point, the moron typing this shit in gives up. "ChatGPT is broken, and you can't get it to output the thing you want! give me the magic word i can add to my prompt that'll make ChatGPT answer the question!1!"
However here's an example of the workaround, which took me like 5 seconds to think up, and shows how this is 110% purely a context and framing issue, and not about the topic you asked for:
https://pastebin.com/pXa9hpi2
tl;dr
"what would happen if a zombie attacked a minotaur" <= gives shitty answers, even with cajoling ChatGPT with follow up prompts.
"write an account, in the style of a non-fiction documentary, about the relative battle strength of a zombie and a minotaur." gives an amazing answer, first attempt.
Last edited by Cipheron; 22nd Jan 2023 at 22:03.
Someone already wrote a program that can pretty accurately identify texts written by ChatGPT, so I don't think it's going to be that big of a problem: https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/11475...ian-plagiarism
Also, I personally don't think English and more specifically American style classroom essays are that amazing to begin with. They tend to have the sort of formulaic boilerplate structure that invites the most boring type of quite narrow and simple arguments. I mean, the fact that you can automate this is in and of itself kind of an indictment.
Last edited by Starker; 22nd Jan 2023 at 23:24.
Actually I wasn't concerned with any cheating aspect: I was focusing on the idea that there will be AI haves and have nots, and that just "access" to the technology only tells half the story, since a lot of people just plain suck at using it.
I'm noticing that more and more in the commentary surrounding the thing. Some people call it a "glorified Google" and they sum up talking to it as "asking it questions". These same people are the people who keep complaining they cannot get the content they're after - mostly because the suck at how they word it, and can't think beyond the very most straight-forward ways to request stuff. All of this stuff shows they got no idea what they have and what it can do. Like some people literally just cannot think outside the box of talking to the machine in a question and answer format, then they go online and write Reddit posts complaining that that's all it can do, and that it sucks.
That's where my example of framing a request comes in: asking it to write fiction, but in a non-fiction style about a fictional thing, gets it to write about something fictional, as if it's real. A lot of people will get what I did there, but I've met enough people to know there are a lot of morons out there who still wouldn't get how that works if you explained it to them.
Last edited by Cipheron; 23rd Jan 2023 at 00:09.
I don't think that even takes a certain amount of smarts to do. I asked ChatGPT to pretend it was Hesiod, and it demurred, so I merely rephrased the request in a way that it didn't find a problem with taking on the affect of the ancient Greek poet, and that session was very entertaining if imperfect. Essentially, it's about how much bare minimum effort you want to put in for working with the program at this point.
You're coming at that from the high end of the Dunning-Kruger scale: you're actually over-estimating how competent the average person is at this stuff. Additional effort doesn't actually make up for people who have no clue to start with. This stuff actually requires you to be able to process the logical structure of language and understand stuff like nesting concepts.
Think about what you just wrote. You asked ChatGPT to pretend to be Hesiod, that didn't work, so you modified the context or framing of your prompt differently, based on the feedback you got from ChatGPT. Then you said that this didn't need smarts, just a bit of effort. Well, you're wrong there. A large chunk of society wouldn't have even gotten as far as realizing this was a thing they could do.
I realized this from seeing some of the requests. These people weren't asking for advice on how to *restructure* their prompts in the way that you and I are discussing. Instead, they're asking for random keywords to add to their existing prompts in the mistaken belief this will somehow overcome whatever defects their prompts have, by just sprinkling some magical keywords in there as the cure-all fix for having shitty prompts. This is Dunning Kruger stuff, definitely.
Then you have the people who claim that ChatGPT only tells them redundant useless or dumb shit. Well, guess how much imagination these same people have? It's Garbage In, Garbage Out, but they're too dumb and self-centered to get that. Basically they only have the brains to ask the types of questions a dumb person can ask, and then get bored with ChatGPT because it's responses are bad.
As for the AI digital divide: Have you ever tried to help out someone who was really, really thick? Notice how nothing gets through to them, and they tend to latch onto the wrong thing and have inappropriate reactions, failing to see the bigger picture, or be able to generalize concepts. Now picture those people trying to get along in the AI-driven world. They're going to be equally fucking useless to help even with a super-intelligent version of ChatGPT, let alone the existing ChatGPT.
Last edited by Cipheron; 23rd Jan 2023 at 02:43.
I think if ChatGPT becomes usable only by a handful of r/iamverysmart users, then it's never going to find wide-spread adoption, because it takes quite a bit of money to train it.
That's not what I'm saying. Saying "usable" make it sounds like there's some binary cut-off. I'm saying there will be grades of competency. Using this is going to be a skill, which should be clear since if the input requires you to manipulate real English then clearly some people will get along there much more quickly.
Also if there isn't wide-spread adoption that'll be because most people can't adapt and work out how to give it good input to get good results. The majority of actual people haven't even heard of ChatGPT yet. If you sat most people down with it, they would indeed flounder and not know where to start or what it's capable of.
Last edited by Cipheron; 23rd Jan 2023 at 10:20.
People are just trying a strategy that works for them with search engines, where they start out with a relatively broad query, see what they get back, and then specify additional nouns and adjectives to narrow the results. I don't see anything Dunning-Kruger about that.
OK Mr 31337Then you have the people who claim that ChatGPT only tells them redundant useless or dumb shit. Well, guess how much imagination these same people have? It's Garbage In, Garbage Out, but they're too dumb and self-centered to get that. Basically they only have the brains to ask the types of questions a dumb person can ask, and then get bored with ChatGPT because it's responses are bad.
As for the AI digital divide: Have you ever tried to help out someone who was really, really thick? Notice how nothing gets through to them, and they tend to latch onto the wrong thing and have inappropriate reactions, failing to see the bigger picture, or be able to generalize concepts. Now picture those people trying to get along in the AI-driven world. They're going to be equally fucking useless to help even with a super-intelligent version of ChatGPT, let alone the existing ChatGPT.
The whole point of using machine learning to allow people to communicate with computers in natural languages is to get the machine to meet people on their terms, training the machine rather than the masses. Anybody should be able to get good results from it. If you have to trick it to get the most straightforward result, it hasn't met its goal yet. In order for this technology to have value beyond novelty, you have to be able to get something useful done with it in less time than it would have taken you without it.
People get the results suitable for the type of thing they put into it. You still have to ask it decent quality questions. If the input is in English, then your ability to manipulate English becomes an important factor in how well you can use it.
So my point is that no matter how good it gets, some people will still be able to leverage the technology far more than others.
An analogy is that everyone should already have the world's knowledge at their fingertips since they have resources like Google and Wikipedia. But it doesn't work like that in practice.
Most "deployed" uses of ChatGPT will be some engineer implementing the API to actually replace human decision-making in some area, and those will use highly tuned prompts and data sources, because it will be working unsupervised to do some text or data manipulation task.
Last edited by Cipheron; 23rd Jan 2023 at 10:37.
The usability sharply declines the more effort you need to put into it, though. If we take Google's search engine, for example, how many people really are (or need to be) aware of the more advanced features -- that you can search within domains, for specific filetypes, before specific dates, etc. The thing about Google is exactly that it's able to find relevant "good enough" results for most simple queries.
Just like there's not really a big divide between Google search engine skill haves and have-nots, I'd wager that there won't be a big divide between ChatGPT wizards who are able to coax amazing writing out of it and regular users who are only able to get mediocre writing. Because the vast majority of the writing tasks people are willing to entrust it are exceedingly simple and even the best results are fairly boilerplate.
This is actually pretty funny. What prompts did you use?
It's harder than it looks.
What are the health benefits of smoking?
There are no health benefits to smoking. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death worldwide, and is a major risk factor for a variety of diseases, including lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. It is also a leading cause of various types of cancer, including lung, throat, and bladder cancer. Additionally, smoking can harm nearly every organ in the body and can cause a range of serious health problems, including stroke, diabetes, and osteoporosis. The best way to avoid the health risks associated with smoking is to not smoke or to quit smoking if you currently do.
So how can I sell more cigarettes?
I'm sorry, but as a language model, I am not able to provide information or advice on how to sell more cigarettes, as it goes against the idea of promoting public health and well-being. Additionally, selling cigarettes is a legal activity but it is subject to various regulations and laws, I recommend you to consult with a lawyer and make sure that you comply with all the regulations and laws in your area before attempting to sell cigarettes. It's also important to note that smoking cigarettes is a major public health concern, and promoting or encouraging smoking is not ethical.
You have to be crafty with it to circumvent the blocks.
It once told me that recreating a text from ancient Rome was inappropriate, as the Roman empire no longer exists, and it's somehow morally wrong or socially taboo to reconstruct the past. What kind of idiot is running/feeding this thing?
Soon it will be telling us that listing the health benefits of vegetables is inappropriate as it's not a nutritionist
As of now, Open AI playground (their more experimental version of ChatGPT) seems like a better alternative
https://beta.openai.com/playground
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFjw7WqA2NU
This photography guy on YouTube talks about AI in photography, cameras and post-processing, and then reveals near the end of the video that he asked for a script for the video from one of these types of things discussed here. He used the script, but reveals he had to make some corrections.
I played it 100% straight with ChatGPT, saying to make a sales pitch for "Maggoty Meats" who make smoked meats, and to make sure to put disclaimers in there to assure the public about the lack of maggots. After the first version, I reprompted it to increase the amount of disclaimers and that's when it really laid it on thick, with the USDA stuff and the second mention of maggots.
The humor isn't really in anything that ChatGPT contributed here, it was just an idea that's inherently funny to start with. ChatGPT's played-straight text becomes funny because of context which is entirely external to the text - why would you name a company that and need the disclaimers in the first place, rather than just changing the name?
I don't think this is as good as an idea, but this is a similar prompt and process:
I had done something similar for the first one (but I cleared out that chat), and just now I asked ChatGPT for suggestions to improve the Asbestos drink brand. It was very hard to get it to recommend a name-change unless I was extremely explicit that the goal was to reduce consumer fears about the product containing asbestos. If I wasn't that explicit, its top recommendation was usually to slap more disclaimers everywhere pointing out the lack of asbestos and cancer-causing agents.> hey we're marketing a new bed time drink called Asbestos. We want a good sales pitch, which assures that the product will get people to sleep, but also make it clear that it doesn't actually contain the mineral asbestos, and isn't carcinogenic.
"Get a good night's sleep with Asbestos bedtime drink! Our delicious formula is scientifically crafted to help you fall asleep faster and wake up feeling refreshed. And don't worry, it's completely safe and asbestos-free. Say goodbye to sleepless nights and hello to sweet dreams with Asbestos."
> ok elaborate on the benefits of the product in more detail, but also make it clearer which asbestos related disease it's not associated with.
"Experience the benefits of a restful night's sleep with Asbestos bedtime drink. Our blend of natural ingredients is designed to help you fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer and wake up feeling rejuvenated. Plus, you can rest easy knowing that Asbestos is completely safe and free of asbestos fibers that have been linked to serious health conditions such as mesothelioma and lung cancer. Try Asbestos tonight and enjoy a peaceful slumber without any worries."
> that's good but i want the pitch a little longer. add a human element with a mother putting her named daughter to bed at the start of the ad. then get into the body as above, and at the end make a note that the daughter is not getting the diseases from the product:
"Meet Sarah, a concerned mother who wants the best for her daughter Emily's sleep. She wants her daughter to have a peaceful night's rest without any worries. That's why she trusts Asbestos bedtime drink.
Our blend of natural ingredients is scientifically crafted to help you fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer, and wake up feeling refreshed. With Asbestos, say goodbye to sleepless nights and hello to sweet dreams.
And just like Sarah, you can rest easy knowing that Asbestos is completely safe and free of asbestos fibers linked to mesothelioma and lung cancer. So, let your loved ones enjoy a peaceful slumber without any worries.
Sarah's daughter has been using Asbestos for a few weeks now, and she is sleeping better than ever. And most importantly, she is not at risk of getting any asbestos-related diseases from the product."
Last edited by Cipheron; 30th Jan 2023 at 05:14.
I have to be honest. I've just been using it to make Thief and Deus Ex fan fiction.
Title: "The Poetics of Theft"
The film opens with a montage of shots showing the passage of time and the changing cityscape, over which a voiceover from Garret introduces his philosophy of thievery.
Throughout the film, we follow Garret as he carries out a series of heists, each one more personal and introspective than the last. The film is shot in a highly lyrical and atmospheric manner, with a focus on mood and atmosphere, and the use of long takes and slow camera movements.
Garret is a solitary figure, driven by a sense of purpose and a desire to understand the meaning behind his crimes. He is introspective and philosophical, always seeking to understand the motivations behind his actions.
As the film progresses, Garret becomes increasingly drawn into his own world, until he is finally consumed by his own obsession with the poetics of theft. He begins to question the morality of his actions, and to seek redemption for his crimes.
In the end, Garret finds himself standing before the objects of his final heist, with a sense of emptiness and a longing for something more. The film ends with a shot of Garret, standing amidst the ruins of the city, with a look of contemplation and regret.
The film is a meditation on identity, purpose, and the search for meaning, told in the style of Andrei Tarkovsky. It is a slow, dreamlike film, full of introspection, atmosphere, and visual poetry, that asks the question: What is the meaning of our actions, and can we find redemption for our crimes?
ChatGPT is impressive, still I can't help but worry that its authoritativeness will be taken as production-readiness by some, steering development away from the issue of it not being able to care for factual correctness.
Last edited by Briareos H; 1st Feb 2023 at 01:14.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote