- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/18077383
You must log in or register to comment.
Oddly, “bullshit” qualifies as a technical term in this context. The authors argue that chatgpt (and similar systems) emit bullshit.
They don’t lie or hallucinate because they don’t know or believe anything. It’s all just text modeling.
The focus in this type of AI is to produce text that looks convincing, but it doesn’t have any concept of truth/falsehood, fact or fiction.
When this is the way someone talks, we say that they’re bullshitting us. So it is with chatgpt.
Plot twist. They used ChatGPT to write it – The article is a confession
I wish I was as bold as these authors.
Let’s hope it’s extra bold. The last one was decidedly UNBOLD.
I love the term too but I wonder how it’ll be used in situations where profanity is discouraged
What are those situations?
Educating children about LLMs for the most part. There are also religious institutions that would like to be informed about LLMs as well
Most children are eventually educated on these words. Usually by 1st grade, if I remember right.
What you’re thinking of is what parents think they want reality to be, not reality.
You have a point. I did remember being told that the word “shit” was a curse word that I should always avoid. But that was in the 2000s, so that sentiment may have changed now (that was in the United States and now I’ve been living in Indonesia so I don’t know the evolution of languages there anymore). I know that the word “queer” used to be a slur as well. Let’s see if the word “bullshit” becomes normalized in society as the years go on
Which ones? The ones that allow raping of children by their leaders?
Or the ones that promote violence in their holy books, like killings and torturing to death? Oh, but the profanity! Not the profanity.
I am aware that Lemmy has an anti-religious bent but the fact is that religious people are part of this world, some even in places of power. Shouldn’t they also be informed about how LLMs are prone to bullshit as well? Though if they are OK with the word “bullshit” then it’s all fine by me at the end of the day
I didn’t downvote you, by the way.
But I’m curious: are you still talking about LLMs discussions that include profanity?
Or are you talking about something different, the fact that LLMs can spew bullshit, and that religious congregators should be informed about this?
I’m talking about the latter. Religious people often use LLMs as well (https://apnews.com/article/germany-church-protestants-chatgpt-ai-sermon-651f21c24cfb47e3122e987a7263d348). Their knowledge is likely limited to ChatGPT so they’re likely to be vulnerable to these things. I think one of the things that worry me the most is that these people may take LLM bullshit at face value, or even worse, take them as a “divine commands”.
I don’t follow how you went from being concerned about using profanity in research papers because of audiences such as religious communities, to being concerned about LLMs spewing inaccurate things.
Has your original question always been about the latter?
I love the term too but I wonder how it’ll be used in situations where profanity is discouraged
What is the danger of explaining the word “bullshit” to children? Of course like many topics it should be explained carefully e.g. reading Frankfurt before discussing this specific paper.
And religion can politely go fuck itself when it comes to deciding what words professional academics use. They did that long enough already… But actually I know a few religious philosophers and they use the term without complaints.
Understandable, though we should also find ways to explain complex academic concepts, like LLM bullshit, to the general public, including those with strong religious beliefs that may be sensitive to these words. The fact that some religious philosophers already use this term without issue shows that it’s possible to bridge this gap.
BS: Bologna Sandwich. “That’s a load of bologna!”
I couldn’t care less about places in which profanity is discouraged.
If you’re going to be disrespectful, you’ll be so regardless of language.
For instance:
“You suck donkey balls”
vs.
(And bear in mind that I don’t use this term!)
“You’re mentally retarded”
No profanity in the second one. And yet, I’d feel like punching the person’s face who would say the second one to me. Not because someone would say that to me, but because I find the use of the label offensive in general.
So, fuck it.
If you want to get technical, only saying things like “Jesus Christ” as a statement of exasperation are profanities, because they are supposed to disrespect sacred things, but I think these days, we could consider the profane to be the disrespectful. In which case, I would say that the R-word is a profanity, for the same reason the N-word is a profanity.
If we’re trending technical in our etymological taxonomies, then the X-words are all slurs because they insult people for belonging to specific groups. As you say, profanities and blasphemies need to address the sacred in some disrespectful way. I believe that leaves… curse words and expletives as the remaining categories of naughty words. Any others? I suppose vulgarity and obscenity, but those feel like subtypes of expletives to me.
You make a good point about the potential for harm in all types of language, regardless of whether it’s considered ‘profanity’ or not. I also agree that intent and impact matter more than the specific words used.
At the same time, I’m curious about how this relates to words like ‘bullshit’ in different social contexts. Do you think there are still situations where using ‘bullshit’ might be seen as more or less appropriate, even if we agree that any word can potentially cause harm?
I’m just an individual, so my opinion may be just that. My opinion.
To answer your question, families may ban the use of said words in the sanctity of their own homes, for example.
The only reason I may feel that curse words are inappropriate in any situation is because I’m already conditioned, from childhood, to think of them as “they may offend.” But if no such conditioning existed, I’d say they would be okay in any instance, because the words per se are not offending. The intent is.
Take, for example, an eulogy. A person speaking of someone who recently passed away, may say “Excuse me everyone, but gosh darn, why did he have to leave so soon? I feel like a failure, because I could have done more. I’m a failure!” Why should it be different from “Excuse me everyone, but fuck, why did he have to leave so soon? I feel like I fucked up because I could have done more. I’m a fuckup!” Really, the only reason we may silently gasp at the second version is because we were conditioned to “gasp” at those words while growing up. Not because the words cause actual psychological, irreparable harm.
You touched the topic of religion in other comments. I guarantee you that when God, before killing everyone with a flood during Noah’s ark times, I’m sure He at least, at the very least looked at the state of the “failed world” and said “well, shit!”
I get where you’re coming from. Ideally, we should be able to say whatever we want whenever we want. But based on my experience as an autistic living in a country where context is very important, the way you convey words affects your standing in a society, at least one that caters to neurotypicals that are highly dependent on context. I have no easy answers to how we can eliminate this hurdle, but your words truly made me think about language usage and how society should perceive them and I would like to thank you for that.
You’re one fine poster, and I like your discussion style.
Sorry if I sounded harsh at times.
I didn’t even think of how would neurodiverse people in the picture, and now you have made me think about things.
That’s not bold. Just a limited vocabulary.
I’m so sick of people like you. “Oh, they may be right but they were a bit rude. So I’m going to pretend that they are wrong”. Go fuck yourself if you have nothing useful to contribute. This is just a tactic trolls use in the internet to distract people, and people keep falling for it.
Plus if you actually read the article you would know that they are referencing an academic definition of bullshit. So go fuck yourself twice, you didn’t even bother to read before declaring your incredible moral superiority. You are just a clown.
Let me say this slowly for you, so you can maybe understand. I wasn’t criticizing the point in the original article. I was criticizing the OP who said it was “bold.”
Now, run along and argue with someone more your speed. Try 5th graders.
Wow you really got him lmao. Go back to Reddit
The article uses the academically and philosophically defined term “bullshit.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
And I’m not bullshitting, the authors mention it in the abstract.
deleted by creator
Your comment is a sign of limited vocabulary, because you pretty much used words that everyone uses.
(See how your argument holds no water?)
I wasn’t trying to be an academic edgelord.
You have no valid point. You’re trying to discredit my point by pointlessly picking on my choice of words. I was discrediting the categorizing of the method used to make it.
I wasn’t trying to be an academic edgelord.
Followed by:
You have no valid point. [etc]
Sure.
Lol. Who spit in your bean curd?
Lol!
Ok, troll.
Not calling something bullshit when it’s bullshit is itself an example of bullshit.
