[ExI] ChatGPT 'Not Interesting' for creative works

[spike at rainier66.com]

>... On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat

> _______________________________________________


Ecclesiastes 12:12
And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is
no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.
----------

>...And now we have the Internet, self-publishing, Kindle and ChatGPT.
We have so much to read it is indeed wearisome to the flesh.
I don't think Stephenson is talking just about his personal preferences. If
computers can now produce ream after ream of plausible words strung
together, what is the point of spending human time reading this endless
stream? If there is no human personality behind it, then let another machine
read it.


BillK

_______________________________________________



Ja!  This thread has long been heading in this direction BillK: we need
versions of ChatGPT that can be personally owned and operated.  I am told it
requires tons of bandwidth and computing speed, but I don't understand why
one couldn't have a micro-ChatGPT that operates on my one processor and uses
my modest home bandwidth, going out researching in its background computing
cycles and searching around mostly as I sleep.  I don't understand why it
wouldn't gradually get smarter and become a better companion, if it can be
trained by me.  It hasta be able to learn and remember what I told it.

I still want to try that experiment where you train a micro-ChatGPT, I train
one, then we have the two debate away in the night.  Then we see what they
said.  That should be a hoot.

If anyone here knows exactly why ChatGPT can't be scaled down by six orders
of magnitude and sold to consumers, do educate me please.  Seems to me like
whatever magic that banks of a thousand computers can do can be done at a
thousandth that pace with one.  Ja?  Why not?  I want to try it.

Thanks for the cool Ecclesiastes quote, me lad!

spike