Folks, I'm concerned abt growing number of sources implying that chatbots & bot/search kluges like Copilot are appropriate for student research.
THIS IS FALSE & DANGEROUS /a Bots CAN'T adduce the sources of info w/in their training data; so the "blurry" modeling of these (unknown) sources is what produce the outputs on which posthoc searches are conducted /b

Yes @OpenAI new text-to-video is impressive but here's 5 questions that journos & the public should be asking--relentlessly.

1. When will you release the datasets used for training this system so we know whose data was captured w/o consent & in potential copyright violation?+ @OpenAI 2. What were the conditions of labor for employing the human annotators who worked on this system. What were they paid? What toxic content were they exposed to at industrial scale and factory pace? +

#CriticalAI posts some reflections on @_KarenHao & @cwarzel's always excellent reporting. Implicit in their context for their #OAI story in the Atlantic is that the charter's definition of "AGI," an always contestable term, is unstable, self-trumpeting, & potentially dangerous /1 @_KarenHao @cwarzel FTR, "AGI" conventionally refers to human-level intelligence; OAI's weirdly narrowly economic definition both gestures toward cultish hyper-utilitarianism AND makes it easier to market any useful tool as a step toward "AGI." /2

With all due respect, Professor Mollick, the opening paragraph of your blog post is simply not accurate.

https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1683143723490713601

Re opening para: There was nothing at all "unexpected" about the arrival of ChatGPT: and we shouldn't forget that the main difference b/w it and its precursors is very much to do w/ human labor.

I am struck by the seeming disconnect in @theinformation's reportage on the WGA strike. They want to spin as it as "visual effects" designers are ready to adapt, writers not. /1 @theinformation Yet their reportage is careful enough to note that writers do not fear AI "replacement." They perceive the use of AI as a wedge to turn the entire category of "writer" into an upskiller of AI dreck for lower pay /2

In the effort curb misunderstanding and #AIHype on the topic of language models (LMs), we're circulating a tweet thread to offer a baseline understanding of how systems such as OpenAI's GPT-3 work to deliver sequences of human-like text in response to prompts. /1 We're directing this thread especially to our humanist readers who may be only peripherally aware of the increased commercialization of (and hype about) "artificial intelligence" (AI) text generators.
NB: AI is itself a slippery term: we use it w/ caution.
/2