Lvxferre [he/him]

I’m checking the steam reviews, apparently it wasn’t the only factor; players are complaining even the so-called 1.0 version still feels like a beta.

It is not impressive, but it makes the rest of the output even worse. You’re expected to treat the bot’s output as human language, but it doesn’t make sense like language would: it identifies the soy sauce, it should be able to identify the bowl is empty, no change happened, and yet it’s still babbling that the guy “already combined the base ingredients”.

Transcript:

• [guy] Hey, Meta, start LiveAI.
• [two centuries later…]
• [robot] Starting LiveAI. I love the setup you have here with soy sauce and other ingredients. How can I help?
• [guy] Hey, can you help me make a Korean-inspired steak sauce for my steak sandwich here?
• [robot] You can make a Korean-inspired steak sauce using soy sauce, sesame oil…
• [guy, interrupting bot] What do I do first?
• [three centuries later…]
• [guy, repeating] What do I do first?
• [robot] You’ve already combined the base ingredients, so now grate a pear to add to the sauce.
• [guy] What do I do first?
• [audience laughs]
• [robot] You’ve already combined the base ingredients, so now grate the pear [audience laughs] and gently combine it with the base sauce.
• [guy] Alright, I think the Wi-Fi might be messed up. Sorry, back to you, Mark!
• [robot LARPing as a guy] [Mark Zuckerberg] It’s all good. Youknowwhat? It’s all good. The irony of the whole thing is that you spend years making technology and then the Wi-Fi at the e[nd of the] day kinda catches you.

My comments:

1. Wi-Fi my arse. This is blatantly bull fucking shit. The model answered the situation wrong; it is able to parse individual items in the footage (note how it praises the “setup” at the start), but it babbles about the guy combining the base ingredients even if not the case.
2. Bot feels like a slowpoke. Seriously, it takes ages to answer the guy.
3. Anyone with a functional brain knows those models don’t understand shit. However, answering “what do I do first?” with the assumption a person already did some steps is dumb even for those models.
4. People don’t repeat questions to get the same answer. Is the “context” window of the bot that small?

[OP, sorry for the harsh words. They’re directed at the text and not towards you.]

To be blunt this “essay” is a pile of shit. It’s so bad, but so bad, that I gave up dissecting it. Instead I’ll list the idiocies = fallacies = disingenuous arguments it’s built upon:

• Nirvana idiocy = fallacy: “unless its perfect than its useless lol lmao”.
• Begging the question: being trained on [ipsis ungulis] “the entire corpus of human output” with enough money to throw at it won’t “magically” make AI output indistinguishable from human generated content.
• Straw man: if the author is going to distort the GPTZero FAQ, to double down on the nirvana idiocy, they should at least clip the quote further, to not make it so obvious. There’s a bloody reason the FAQ is focusing on punishment.

Note nirvana fallacy is so prevalent, but so prevalent, that once you try to remove it the text puffs into nothing. The whole text is built upon it. (I’m glad people developing anti-spam systems don’t take the same idiocy seriously, otherwise our mailboxes would be even worse than they already are.)

I like to put it this way:

“This is a customer, not a rational human being! Stop treating it as human! It doesn’t even understand simple orders, you tell it «buy it» and it doesn’t! You need to condition and tame those things - smear the same message over and over on its snout until it swallows it, like a dog.”