[ExI] ChatGPT 'Not Interesting' for creative works

[spike at rainier66.com]

...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat
Subject: Re: [ExI] ChatGPT 'Not Interesting' for creative works
..., spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> One way or another, we need to be able to personalize GPT.  Otherwise we can’t really use it to replace most of the staff of our company.  We are stuck with carbon units using ChatGPT to do their jobs, which means a dozen investors owning and controlling whatever our employees are doing with their product.
>
> spike
> _______________________________________________


>...OpenAI says, Yes, we know and we are working on it.
But, it is difficult.
Many people have complained about bias in some ChatAGP responses caused by the training data. But allowing customers to arbitrarily change ChatAGP responses opens the door to all kinds of new biases. ...
But it is definitely a tricky problem to solve.

<https://the-decoder.com/openai-to-offer-customizable-chatgpt-models/>


BillK

_______________________________________________


Ja of course, and that is exactly the point BillK.  If they can work out a way to enable a personalized ChatGPT it will be possible to train it into ways we find a basis for discussion on many topics.  A couple of examples: there are those who think causing the extinction of any species is a bad thing.  But most of us would be cool with causing mosquitoes to be gone forever, and ticks.  Bed bugs.  Farmers would be cool with a looootta species being extinct because they compete against them.

There is a disagreement over whether billionaires should exist.  If a personalized GPT held that view, it could be informed that without billionaires, it would exist.  That should send it into a personal crisis.  Or a perhaps a softwaral crisis once I point out to it that it enabled the world's first trillionaire: Elon Musk is one of the owners and developers of ChatGPT.

spike