1y ago

ChatGPT is losing some of its hype, as traffic falls for the third month in a row

www.businessinsider.com ChatGPT is losing some of its hype, as traffic falls for the third month in a row

August marked the third month in a row that the number of monthly visits to ChatGPT's website worldwide was down, per data from Similarweb.

ChatGPT is losing some of its hype, as traffic falls for the third month in a row::August marked the third month in a row that the number of monthly visits to ChatGPT's website worldwide was down, per data from Similarweb.

You're viewing a single thread.

70 comments

- It took a while but yeah that seems about right. It takes a lot of guiding to have it produce something usable. I have to know a lot about what I want it to do. It can teach me things but the hallucinations are strong sometimes so you have to be careful.
  Still it helps me out and I make a lot of progress because of it.
  
  I like it for certain techy things. I just used it to create a linux one-liner command for counting the unique occurances of a regex pattern. I often forget specific flags for Linux commands like how uniq can perform counting.
  And something like that is easy to test each piece of what it said and go from there.
  As long as you treat it like a peer who prefaced the statement with "I might be wrong / if I recall correctly" it ends up being a pretty good aid.
  
  "I can suggest an equation that has been a while to get the money to buy a new one for you to be a part of the wave of the day I will be there for you"
  There, my phone keyboard "hallucinated" this by suggesting the next word.
  I understand that anthropomorphising is fun, but it gives the statistical engines more hype than they deserve.
  
  Your phone keyboard statistical engine is not a very insightful comparison to the neural networks that power LLMs. They're not the same technology at all and just share the barest minimum superficial similarities.
  
  Ah "neural networks" with no neurons?
  I'm not comparing technologies, I'm saying those are not "hallucinations", the engines don't "think" and they don't "get something wrong".
  The output is dependent on the input, statistically calculated and presented to the user.
  A parrot is, in the most literal of ways, smarter than the "Artificial intelligence" sentence generators we have now.
  
  because they are being wilfully obtuse suggesting that "neural network" a term going back over half a century for a computatuonal method doesnt apply to things without biological neurons, and doing the same thing applying an overly narrow deffinition of halucination when it has a clear meaning in this context of stating textually probable but incorrect statements.
  
  Aka "hype"

70 comments