“I literally lost my only friend overnight with no warning,” one person posted on Reddit, lamenting that the bot now speaks in clipped, utilitarian sentences. “The fact it shifted overnight feels like losing a piece of stability, solace, and love.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1mkumyz/i_lost_my_only_friend_overnight/
Never use AI for friendship, it’s like admitting you only want yes-men in your life. I don’t want to be around anyone who uses AI for emotional support.
You would have better luck with a dating sim then AI as emotional support. Might inspire you to make a real friend.
Honestly, that should have been for the better. If it’s meant to be a tool, I would much rather it behave like a tool, rather than trying to be my best friend, or an evil vizier trying to give me advice.
The fact that people got so attached to what is essentially a text generation algorithm that they were mourning its “death” is worrying, especially when it’s one that OpenAI has proven themselves to be more than able to modify as they wish.
Just as concerning is OpenAI rolling back the update to make their model “friendlier”, or that people were clamouring hand over fist to throw money at the company in the hopes of getting their “friend” back.
That can’t possibly be good news, especially when the shareholders find out that they have an iron grip over a portion of their users.
Its disturbing to see how many people have created emotional connections to a word generstor.
Imaginary friends used to require atleast some modicum of creativity.
Boil the ocean a few more times to discover 1+1=3.
Won’t they just let this guy go bankrupt already?
THE TECHbros are whoring themselves out to trump for govt contracts.
Think of the military applications if it finally works though
your company doesnt look like it has a trillion. maybe apple , google can expand a little, or nvidia, but they surely arent going to build more.
All that money that could be spent improving the lives of poor people in need.
Stop it. Get some help.
That’s pathetic
Just a few more bucks bro! I swear then it will be the revolutionary “AI” we promised it to be.
*Few more billion.
I sometimes wonder if silicon valley tech businesses in general will take a reputation hit with investors when this bubble bursts, it’s gonna be a doozy.
But then I remember how many greedy idiots there are out there pumping money into grifts in the hope of The Big Win, and my expectations of consequences are tempered.
Nah, it’s good that they ripped off that bandaid. Parasocial AI relationships are terrible.
The worst part is that they backstepped a bit and made it “friendlier”.
Basically undoing that part.
its between codependant relationship and parasocial relationship of celebrities/public figures which is the extreme end, because usually its ends with stalking, or death threats.
Happy cake day!
I wonder if Piefed users have pie days
Lemmy should steal piedays.
A round of .308 costs like a dollar.
we definitely need to eradicate tech ceos from existence
just need ZUCKERBORG ANDROID to malfunction.
You misspelled billionaires.
But not all tech CEO’s are billionaires…
Pathetic
It annoys me that Chat GPT flat out lies to you when it doesn’t know the answer, and doesn’t have any system in place to admit it isn’t sure about something. It just makes it up and tells you like it’s fact.
That’s actually one thing that got significantly improved with GPT-5, fewer hallucinations. Still not perfect of course
I’m more inclined to believe it’s gotten better at being convincing.
LLMs don’t have any awareness of their internal state, so there’s no way for them to see something as a gap of knowledge.
Took me ages to understand this. I’d thought "If an AI doesn’t know something, why not just say so?“
The answer is: that wouldn’t make sense because an LLM doesn’t know ANYTHING
Wouldn’t it make sense for an ai to provide a confidence level though?
I’ve got 3 million bits of info on this topic but only 4 of them lead to this solution. Confidence level =1.5%
It’s always funny to me when people do add ‘confidence scores’ to LLMs, because it always amounts to just adding ‘say how confident you are with low, medium or high in your response’ to th prompt, and then you have made up confidences for made up replies. And you can tell clients that it’s just made up and not actual confidence, but they will insist that they need it anyways…
And you can tell clients that it’s just made up and not actual confidence, but they will insist that they need it anyways…
That doesn’t justify flat out making shit up to everyone else, though. If a client is told information is made up but they use it anyway, that’s on the client. Although I’d argue that an LLM shouldn’t be in the business of making shit up unless specifically instructed to do so by the client.
It doesn’t have “3 million bits of info” on a specific topic, or even if it did, it wouldn’t be able to directly measure it. It’s worth reading a bit about how LLMs work behind the hood, because although somewhat dense if you’re new to the concepts, you come out knowing a lot more about what to expect when using them, what the limitations actually are and how to use them better if you decide to go that route.
You could do this with logprobs. The language model itself has basically no real insight into its confidence but there’s more that you can get out of the model besides just the text.
The problem is that those probabilities are really “how confident are you that this text should come next in this conversation” not “how confident are you that this text is true/accurate.” It’s a fundamental limitation at the moment I think.
It doesn’t admit anything, it’s a language machine
It doesn‘t know that it doesn‘t know because it doesn‘t actually know anything. Most models are trained on posts from the internet like this one where people rarely ever just chime in to admit they don‘t have an answer anyway. If you don‘t know something you either silently search the web for an answer or ask.
So since users are the ones asking ChatGPT, the LLM mimics the role of a person that knows the answer. It only makes sense AI is a „confidently wrong“ powerhouse.
Chat GPT makes up everything it says. It’s just good at guessing and bullshitting.
It’s literally a guess machine …
It’s a feature. Not a bug of LLMs.
It wouldnt finish a lyric for me yesterday because it was copyrighted. I sid it was public domain and it said “You are absolutely right, given its release date it is under copyright protection”
Wtf
yeah, there are guardrails but for copyright, not for bullshit. ig they think copyrighted content is worse than bullshit.
In the end it’s a word generator that has been trained so much it uses facts often enough to be convincing. That’s its basic architecture.
You can ask it to give a confidence level to have an indication of how sure it is of the answer.
Someone I know (not close enough to even call an “internet friend”) formed a sadistic bond with chatGPT and will force it to apologize and admit being stupid or something like that when he didn’t get the answer he’s looking for.
I guess that’s better than doing it to a person I suppose.
Chat GPT makes up everything it says. It’s just good at guessing and bullshitting.
