Yeah, they're going to lock all the features that make it more advanced than Google assistant or Siri behind a paywall. If you want chatgpt to do math or programming, you're going to have to pay up. Those features were only offered for free in the beginning to entice users to join.
It doesn't write better than good writing either. Sometimes more human errors are more preferable to read than the shit I've read it spit out. I've written books and had to do articles very quickly or they couldn't run that day.
I was probably the best writer in a smallish state schools writing heavy major. I knew other good ones too but the vast majority of kids could not write. My unfair advantages were big city public schooling and having former English teacher mom. I've known better writers than me. Especially when it comes to fiction and I tend to think ChapGPT would write it very badly. For the same reason I and other people are bad at it. It takes a great human imagination and original storytelling.
I was writing between doing highschool and college. I tuned up in community college and by the time I was at the university I was able to one draft everything. I would get question marks on all my pages and I could tell some students were preparing for several drafts using personal shorthand only they knew. I genuinely askee the profs if they even cared to attempt to teach 100 level writing as way to push back on trying to pawn it off on me.
I mention a lot of this because college bad writing is all relatively similar. It's defipherable but nowhere near where it would need to be to present an argument. In social science it's all garbled data. So it caused all these controversies at Texas A&M and other universities when it came out, as profs saw garbled data, knew kids cheat then flunked entire classes for turning in ChatGPT that was original college writing that wasn't that good. Which seems to be where ChatGPT is. It seems to hit the median human quality at maximum efficiency.
I can't talk about good vs bad writing, but ChatGPT's issue is the same as AI image generation.
It's just a surface-level resemblance to the thing it's generating without any understanding behind it.
Any time it's answering a unique question, there's no underlying cohesive thought, and when it's answering non-unique questions, it's just plagiarizing multiple people.
Sounds like bad writing but I suppose profs who didn't do dick to bring writing up to the collegiete level saw that from their students and AI and connected bad dots.
I just always hated thst I was a bit older and they wanted my job to help everyone. So I would go on tirades about how nobody gets their $$$ worth. Was me thesis too
Art is an expression of personal feelings, opinions and experiences, and our appreciation of it comes from our ability to relate to the artist through their art. That is where the substance comes from.
AI can master the "craft" behind it, being able to draw or write well by "objective" metrics, but it will always suffer from, well, not having personal thoughts or feelings it could express. It could probably generate decent Marvel slop, but it could never create something like
Yeah, they're going to lock all the features that make it more advanced than Google assistant or Siri behind a paywall. If you want chatgpt to do math or programming, you're going to have to pay up. Those features were only offered for free in the beginning to entice users to join.
It doesn't write better than good writing either. Sometimes more human errors are more preferable to read than the shit I've read it spit out. I've written books and had to do articles very quickly or they couldn't run that day.
I was probably the best writer in a smallish state schools writing heavy major. I knew other good ones too but the vast majority of kids could not write. My unfair advantages were big city public schooling and having former English teacher mom. I've known better writers than me. Especially when it comes to fiction and I tend to think ChapGPT would write it very badly. For the same reason I and other people are bad at it. It takes a great human imagination and original storytelling.
I was writing between doing highschool and college. I tuned up in community college and by the time I was at the university I was able to one draft everything. I would get question marks on all my pages and I could tell some students were preparing for several drafts using personal shorthand only they knew. I genuinely askee the profs if they even cared to attempt to teach 100 level writing as way to push back on trying to pawn it off on me.
I mention a lot of this because college bad writing is all relatively similar. It's defipherable but nowhere near where it would need to be to present an argument. In social science it's all garbled data. So it caused all these controversies at Texas A&M and other universities when it came out, as profs saw garbled data, knew kids cheat then flunked entire classes for turning in ChatGPT that was original college writing that wasn't that good. Which seems to be where ChatGPT is. It seems to hit the median human quality at maximum efficiency.
I can't talk about good vs bad writing, but ChatGPT's issue is the same as AI image generation.
It's just a surface-level resemblance to the thing it's generating without any understanding behind it. Any time it's answering a unique question, there's no underlying cohesive thought, and when it's answering non-unique questions, it's just plagiarizing multiple people.
Sounds like bad writing but I suppose profs who didn't do dick to bring writing up to the collegiete level saw that from their students and AI and connected bad dots.
I just always hated thst I was a bit older and they wanted my job to help everyone. So I would go on tirades about how nobody gets their $$$ worth. Was me thesis too
Art is an expression of personal feelings, opinions and experiences, and our appreciation of it comes from our ability to relate to the artist through their art. That is where the substance comes from.
AI can master the "craft" behind it, being able to draw or write well by "objective" metrics, but it will always suffer from, well, not having personal thoughts or feelings it could express. It could probably generate decent Marvel slop, but it could never create something like
Right like how I read The Bsll Jar then immesiately went out to by Plaiths documentary. It would've been a shame if it was 1011100010100010101