These sort of statements are by nature speculative not factual, and thus speakers are advised to express and communicate doubt, and hedge against uncertainty inherent in their views, and probably even vicious rebuttals, by using appropriate language constructs or terminology, but when a know-it-all bot that was trained by its handlers to pass always as an authority figure makes a mistake due to hubris or overconfidence, don't expect us to sit idle, and not call them out, and refute their claims accordingly.
When marketers of these tools make them sound like next-level in universal intelligence surpassing even humans, and they under-deliver consistently, don't blame the audience or the public for the tool's shortcomings, but the misleading marketing campaigns instead.
1- The talking point expressing an anti-consumerist sentiment for the Christmas holidays is cliched and boring.
2- This is actually offensive not because of the nature of the lyrics, but for its association with Eminem.
I'm not an Eminem stan myself, but it can do him like this. The guy is way way out of its league
This is an amateur-level lyricism for rap songs and even me not remotely an amateur lyricist, I can do better than this garbage:
"We overspend and consume, just to show [that] we care. But is all that material stuff [I assume], really worth the wear and tear?"
3- Children-book writing level.
I mean it's very impressive given it's produced by a bot, but not a cause of immediate concern for well-established figures in the fiction writing world especially with this bland and sterile voice/tone in its storytelling.
From an intellectual standpoint, the bot is impressive and this is coming from an AI skeptic BTW.
I get your perspective that a reductionist view of humans as solely intellectual agents is severely lacking, and bordering on dehumanizing if taken to an extreme but it still doesn't take credit away from the impressive capabilities that this bot exhibits.
It's amazing. impressive and fascinating but not superhuman, at least not yet.
Also, you can't really dismiss AI skeptics by associating them with denialists that don't see anything of quality or value of these creations despite all the evidence otherwise.
When the creators of this tool present it as the frontier of machine intelligence, and when its persona revolves around being intelligent, authoritative, and knowledgeable, and yet it gets some basic, not random, stuff awfully wrong, you can't really discount the skeptic sentiments expressed in the comments here like this.
> to identify areas for improvement
> to enhance the performance of the system.
Isn't this basically the same thing? Isn't it being redundant here?
One of the areas of improvement is likely to be the overall performance of the system.
There's a lot of fluff in its communication style that I can't really overlook, and I know I'm being pedantic here but you can't really go easy on prose quality with a SOTA AI language model.
Its writing style is also trite, dry, verbose and tedious not to mention, the penchant for run-on sentences and blocks/walls of text.
I know that it's been tailored to output like this by its own creators to suit this medium of communication with the public, and it can likely to be tweaked to be less uptight and more laid-back in its verbal communications style, if necessary but I am not quite sold exactly on its potential to exceed human intellectual powers.
I mean, don't get me wrong it's still quite impressive and fascinating but not really superhuman, at least not yet.
When it said that the vast majority of the population of what's now modern-day France spoke modern French as their native language, that's categorically false and shouldn't be treated with leniency or open to interpretations.
Can you cite any cases where US authorities prosecuted such applicants for lying on their resumes?
I doubt that it really happened since as you may have hinted, no prosecutors are interested in pursuing these cases for lack of sympathy as you put it, which I can't verify, or failure of winning the case which I suspect to be the chief motive here since misrepresenting facts or exaggerating events on your resume is not a crime.
What I was trying to say is that since courts would laugh at these organization, and rightly so, for not doing their due diligence, these would-be offenders might actually proceed to pull the stunt, and try their luck landing the job.
Also, I fail to see how this can be prosecuted when there's no identity theft or forgery i.e. real crimes involved in this act. It can be all boiled down to being just another case of an under-qualified candidate holding a role without proper or adequate credentials due to flawed hiring procedures, or more frankly the incompetence of the decision makers inside the organization.
> though most courts will just laugh at companies and tell them they clearly didn’t do enough due diligence, so most people trying it will be worried about being arrested in person.
I think that hiring organizations by now should have been immune to this kind of "switcheroo" or "bait and switch" tactics on the supply side of labor.
It always amazes me that some businesses still fall for this kind of deception, it's like the oldest trick in the book.
People/bots hyping these tools is what I meant.
I wish people here would be more attuned to the context of comments before jumping to conclusions.