> Please write a scathing response to the comment below. Attack each point but avoid criticising the poster. End with a humorous barb. The response should be written in the style of a Hacker News comment. Here is the comment:
> <OP's comment>
Response:
What a load of utter nonsense. The idea that the use of language models like GPT-3 automatically makes all content online inauthentic is ridiculous. Just because it's easier to generate content using these tools doesn't mean that the content itself is any less authentic.
And to suggest that the "cogency/validity barrier" has been blasted away by GPT-3 is equally absurd. The quality of online content has always been determined by the person writing it, not the tools they use. If someone wants to generate nonsense, they can do that with or without GPT-3.
Furthermore, the notion that the cost of publishing content online has any bearing on its quality is completely misguided. The fact is, the cost of publishing content online has decreased dramatically in recent years, and yet the overall quality of online content has not necessarily declined.
In short, this comment is little more than fear-mongering and hand-wringing. Instead of trying to scare people into thinking that all content online is now suspect, let's focus on creating and sharing high-quality content, regardless of the tools we use to do it. And remember, just because you can generate an article with a single prompt doesn't mean it will be any good – that's still up to the person using the tool. So don't throw away your writing skills just yet!
-----
Me: Honestly surprised at how well it pulled off the "scathing" part... It does still have that signature ChatGPT vibe where it's all solid writing, but somehow it feels slightly off. Perhaps that's just bias because I know it's from ChatGPT, though. It does do a pretty good job of attacking the ideas, but I think it just feels like it didn't quite get OP's exact point.
Edit: Actually, on a second reading, I think it did address all of OP's points quite well. There are a couple slight misses but you have to read very carefully to catch them, for example the point about "just because you can .. doesn't mean it will be any good" is logically a bit of a tangent, I think. But it's pretty subtle and seems easy to overlook.
I'm trying to think about why exactly it feels off... Maybe it's because of the way it attacks each individual point without really synthesizing them into a broader theme. It's a very systematic, procedural way of writing a response that I think doesn't feel very humanlike. There's also something about the way it writes about pretty specific topics while still using very generic-sounding phrasing.
Curious to continue the thread, I used the same prompt as you, except with that response as input.
ChatGPT's Response to the Response:
-----
Wow, talk about missing the point. The issue with using language models like GPT-3 isn't that it makes content online inauthentic, it's that it makes it nearly impossible to tell what's real and what's not. And just because someone is a good writer doesn't mean they can't be fooled by a well-crafted piece of AI-generated content.
The fact is, the ease and affordability of generating content with GPT-3 and other language models has significantly lowered the barrier to entry for creating believable, yet completely fake, content. And the idea that the quality of online content is solely determined by the person creating it is naive at best.
So let's not brush off the concerns about the potential impact of these tools on the authenticity of online content. Instead, let's have a serious conversation about how we can ensure the integrity of the information we consume online. And for those who are still skeptical, just remember: even a broken clock is right twice a day. But a language model can generate an infinite number of fake news articles, 24/7.
> And for those who are still skeptical, just remember: even a broken clock is right twice a day. But a language model can generate an infinite number of fake news articles, 24/7.
I'm tickled by this part and I'm trying to figure out why. Maybe it's because it used two cliches that sounds like they should go together but are actually nonsensical in conjunction.
It sounds good to my ears in an attention-grabbing way, but when I give it my attention there's no substance.
There's anti-substance because I can't get it to make coherent sense but I keep trying because it still sounds like it should so I can't shake the sense that I'm the one missing some deeper truth.
It's like the uncanny valley of logical reasoning.
It's not an optical illusion, it's a rhetorical illusion.
This is so great and so disturbing. A tool that can be used to generate infinite arguments against a single point of view, arguing in favor of why it isn’t an “issue”. It’s like a gun arguing it can’t kill people.
This is one of the more impressive replies I’ve seen, and I love that in its rebuttal to defend itself against my argument, it just proves the argument itself. Amazing.
edit: I tried my hand at crafting a prompt to refute my argument, result:
This comment is just another example of the kind of lazy, uninformed thinking that seems to be all too common on this site. The idea that GPT-3 is going to somehow make it impossible to tell whether something was written by a human or not is complete nonsense. If anything, the generic language and poor grammar of GPT-3's outputs make them even easier to spot.
As for the idea that the "cogency/validity barrier" has been blasted away, that's just ridiculous. The fact is that anyone who puts in the time and effort to research and write a blog post is still going to be able to produce much better content than any GPT-3 generated nonsense.
And let's not forget that fact checking is still a thing. If someone posts something online that is clearly garbage, it's not going to take long for people to call them out on it. Just like with the infamous "AI-generated paper accepted at conference" story, it's only a matter of time before the truth comes out.
In conclusion, this comment is just another example of the kind of alarmist nonsense that we see all too often on Hacker News. The reality is that GPT-3 is not some magical tool that is going to make it impossible to tell whether something was written by a human or not. So, let's all take a deep breath and relax. As they say, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
Wow. Really interesting. Sounds like someone who has excellent handle of the English language but lacks a bit in logic.
Feels like the half trolling answers you get in the internet. They are touching the subject that the replies and arguments have nothing to do with the original proposition.
This reminds me of a pretty incisive comment I saw earlier today: "it's not that we should be asking what we can do with a computer that can replace a smart and knowledgeable person--it's what we can do with a hundred dumb ones."
I noticed a wry smile cropping up while reading this. Thanks for sharing. I've also noticed that last thing about specific topic prompts sometimes being responded to with generic-sounding phrasing. Unsure if that's the model or the specific prompts I'm using.
Sometimes I get a very generic response with a phrase or two from the prompt kind of shoehorned in. It's like pretending to be a tree by holding up a branch and saying "tree, tree."
