![Avatar](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fawful.systems%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2F047c2193-b9a3-4c5e-a33c-cb6ca80cf740.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
![Avatar](/_next/image?url=%2Flemmy-icon-96x96.webp&w=3840&q=75)
bitofhope
Bistable multivibrator
Non-state actor
Tabs for AI indentation, spaces for AI alignment
410,757,864,530 DEAD COMPUTERS
Dunno what you want me to say. Define the vague concept of “good writing”?
The linked study finds that ChatGPT 3.5 and Bard suck at writing comedy. You claim in so many words that this should be obvious (along with a really dubious claim that machines can’t tickle people for some reason). I’m also not surprised that these models are terrible at writing comedy, because even at best of times I find their output bland, trite and crudely stripped of anything potentially divisive.
However, lots of people seem to think that LLMs are good at writing related tasks, so I don’t think it’s inherently obvious that these tools suck at writing comedy in particular.
All these words make this reply much less fun to write.
Took me like five minutes of reading to realize this was neant to be a hit piece and not praise.
Reading and listening to fans of AI has actually managed to convince me that machine learning algorithms really are better at reasoning than some humans.
What’s going on with the header image? You’ve got Google Chrome, YouTube and Xitter in one hand, Bitcoin, Ethereum and Brave browser in the other and you’re bridging the gap by fusing your index fingers together?
Were it not for the illustrator credit I’d assume it was generated. (No shade intended to Alexandra Francis, I wouldn’t want to bring my A-game either if I had to work for this kind of bullshit.)