Now someone should ask it:

"If 42 is the answer to the meaning of life, what is the question?"

Edited February 27, 20233 yr by Farlis

19 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Now someone should ask it:

"If 42 is the answer to the meaning of life, what is the question?"

It said:

"That's so outworn and hackneyed, go and ask someone who hasn't heard that before."

Just now, Fiorentoni said:

It said:

"That's so outworn and hackneyed, go and ask someone who hasn't heard that before."

I see they haven't trimmed the sass out of it, yet. 😉

Try asking it why PMDG is taking so long to build an EFB or whether an EFB is important or not.  *ducks for cover as the AI turns violent* 😅

Going on the amount of coders who rave about it, it clearly does work for many things. 

Trouble is you need to be an expert yourself to know whether it's feeding you bilge or not for the important stuff, and there's that it stopped 'learning' in 2021. 

No idea where it's headed, but at the moment it's increased mindlessness and a tidal wave of trite pap. 

Edited February 27, 20233 yr by superspud

8 hours ago, Rockliffe said:

I'm not suggesting AI systems should replace us guys on Avsim when seeking help and advice,  but as an exercise and out of interest, I thought I'd give it a go. What I discovered simply blew me away.

I don't understand this thread.  Are you saying that you asked some sort of AI site the question, and it gave you that answer?   Or is there something else going on here?

1 minute ago, Mace said:

I don't understand this thread.  Are you saying that you asked some sort of AI site the question, and it gave you that answer? 

See? You DO understand this thread.

1 minute ago, Farlis said:

See? You DO understand this thread.

Hah.  So that's what our internet experience is reduced to in 2023.

Wow! This is a tough crowd. I've been using ChatGPT recently and as a mechanism for collating and refining complex data it is Mind-blowing.

I've used it for market research, Dr. Google, information on aircraft systems operation to recipes for broccoli salad.

Keep in mind, it's a demonstration system based on a 'limited' snapshot of data from a couple of years ago. But given it's natural language parsing ability and context dependent response (memory of the discussion), when it gets opened up to scraping for new data on an ongoing basis and enhancements to the AI from user feedback, the potential here is crazy.

7 hours ago, Farlis said:

Now someone should ask it:

"If 42 is the answer to the meaning of life, what is the question?"

Here's the answer it gave....  The question that is often associated with the answer "42" is "What is the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything?" This question is from the science fiction novel "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, in which a supercomputer named Deep Thought is tasked with finding the meaning of life, and the answer it produces is "42". However, the characters in the story are then left wondering what the actual question is that leads to this answer.

6 hours ago, regis9 said:

Try asking it why PMDG is taking so long to build an EFB or whether an EFB is important or not.  *ducks for cover as the AI turns violent* 😅

Here's the answer Dave... 

PMDG, like many other software developers, has to allocate its resources carefully to develop new features and products. Developing an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) can be a significant undertaking that requires significant resources, time, and effort. Additionally, PMDG may have other priorities or projects that they are working on, and they need to balance those with the demand for an EFB.

As for the importance of an EFB, it can be a valuable tool for pilots and airlines. An EFB is essentially a digital version of the paper-based flight bag that pilots have traditionally used. It can include a wide range of information and tools, such as charts, weather data, airport information, and more. An EFB can help pilots access critical information quickly and easily, improving situational awareness and safety. It can also help airlines reduce paper usage, streamline operations, and improve efficiency.

However, developing an EFB is not without its challenges. It requires extensive testing and validation to ensure that the software is reliable, secure, and compliant with regulatory requirements. PMDG may be taking the time necessary to develop an EFB that meets these criteria and provides a high-quality user experience.

 

I think there are quite a few on this thread who don't actually undertsand what ChatGBT is, and for that I apologise. I made an assumption that most on here would have an understanding of what it is. I was only introduced to it last week and at first I couldn't see what all the fuss is about, but now find it mind blowing. Some have likened it as the most important development since the start of the internet. I suspect Google and other search engines must be cowering in their shoes. Reason is.... my understanding of things.... the standard search engine as we know it, simply uses a series of keywords that are inputted into the search box and then sends out 'spiders' across the internet to crawl around finding text or images that include those keywords and then displays those 'items' in a prioritised list on your browser. ChatGBT is different, you can ask it a question without a series of keywords, as it answers based on information it has gatherd from millions of GB of data that it has learnt from. So it doesn't simply scour the internet and delivering links to websites but actually uses it's AI to respond with an answer.

This is fun and I would find it difficult to understand how someone wouldn't be blown away with this....... 

Q)  Is flight simulation a geeky hobby?

A)  Flight simulation is a hobby that can be enjoyed by people of all interests and backgrounds. While some people might consider it a "geeky" hobby, that term is subjective and can mean different things to different people.In reality, flight simulation is a hobby that requires a lot of technical knowledge and skill, which may appeal to people who enjoy learning and mastering complex systems. However, it can also be a fun and relaxing activity for those who simply enjoy the experience of "flying" and exploring virtual environments. Furthermore, flight simulation can also be a useful tool for real-world training and education. Pilots, air traffic controllers, and other aviation professionals often use flight simulators to practice and refine their skills, as well as to simulate emergency scenarios and other situations that would be difficult or dangerous to replicate in real life. Ultimately, whether or not flight simulation is considered a "geeky" hobby is largely a matter of personal opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer. What matters most is that individuals find hobbies and activities that they enjoy and that provide them with a sense of fulfillment and enjoyment.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 20233 yr by Rockliffe

^^^^^ THIS !!!

So my experience with chatGPT has been "spiky" (not just mixed) -- it's too simple to say that I'm either "impressed" or "unimpressed." I think it's impressive but also kind of dangerous, and not in a "this AI will kill us all/take our jobs" way.

I'd summarize my impression as it being essentially a 19-year-old intern with limited knowledge, boundless self-confidence, and a talent, and penchant, for bullsh*t. Sorry, I don't think any other precise synonym exists for what I'm describing; I'm using the term as defined in this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullword not allowed: "Speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullsh*tter doesn't care if what they say is true or false, but cares only whether the listener is persuaded."

You can ask it a question, and it's going to give you an answer. Does it care whether the answer is correct? Nope! Is the answer going to be correct? Maybe, maybe not. But it will go to great lengths to try to persuade you that even its answers that are wrong -- and that you call it on! -- are in fact correct, or at least mostly correct. I've had it try to doggedly convince me, in the face of my objections, that the Sunda Straits Crisis happened in 1958 (it was thinking of one of the Taiwan Straits Crises), that Guyana's anthem dates from the 18th century (it was written in the 1960s), and that the defeat of the Spanish Armada marked the end of Spain as a global power ("yes, you are correct that Spain remained the dominant global power well into the 17th century, but national declines often take place gradually" -- fine, but a minute ago you said that "the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 marked the end of Spain as the dominant global power"!).

In all of this it also feels unnervingly human. It reminds me very much of people I've known who would do the same thing, pile rationalizations and caveats on top of each other to try to salvage some expansive claim they'd made when they just didn't know enough to say anything intelligent. So it's both an achievement and a worrying development. We count on calculators to correctly tell us that 4+4 = 8, and that's mostly our mental model for computers. This is something very different. It's impossible to specify how "accurate" it is, because its accuracy will vary with each question you ask, just like a human. But if it's a human, it's a particularly dishonest human who's often simply full of it.

James

9 hours ago, honanhal said:

So my experience with chatGPT has been "spiky" (not just mixed) -- it's too simple to say that I'm either "impressed" or "unimpressed." I think it's impressive but also kind of dangerous, and not in a "this AI will kill us all/take our jobs" way.

I'd summarize my impression as it being essentially a 19-year-old intern with limited knowledge, boundless self-confidence, and a talent, and penchant, for bullsh*t. Sorry, I don't think any other precise synonym exists for what I'm describing; I'm using the term as defined in this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullword not allowed: "Speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullsh*tter doesn't care if what they say is true or false, but cares only whether the listener is persuaded."

You can ask it a question, and it's going to give you an answer. Does it care whether the answer is correct? Nope! Is the answer going to be correct? Maybe, maybe not. But it will go to great lengths to try to persuade you that even its answers that are wrong -- and that you call it on! -- are in fact correct, or at least mostly correct. I've had it try to doggedly convince me, in the face of my objections, that the Sunda Straits Crisis happened in 1958 (it was thinking of one of the Taiwan Straits Crises), that Guyana's anthem dates from the 18th century (it was written in the 1960s), and that the defeat of the Spanish Armada marked the end of Spain as a global power ("yes, you are correct that Spain remained the dominant global power well into the 17th century, but national declines often take place gradually" -- fine, but a minute ago you said that "the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 marked the end of Spain as the dominant global power"!).

In all of this it also feels unnervingly human. It reminds me very much of people I've known who would do the same thing, pile rationalizations and caveats on top of each other to try to salvage some expansive claim they'd made when they just didn't know enough to say anything intelligent. So it's both an achievement and a worrying development. We count on calculators to correctly tell us that 4+4 = 8, and that's mostly our mental model for computers. This is something very different. It's impossible to specify how "accurate" it is, because its accuracy will vary with each question you ask, just like a human. But if it's a human, it's a particularly dishonest human who's often simply full of it.

James

Your quote 'In all of this it also feels unnervingly human. It reminds me very much of people I've known who would do the same thing, pile rationalizations and caveats on top of each other to try to salvage some expansive claim they'd made when they just didn't know enough to say anything intelligent. So it's both an achievement and a worrying development. We count on calculators to correctly tell us that 4+4 = 8, and that's mostly our mental model for computers. This is something very different. It's impossible to specify how "accurate" it is, because its accuracy will vary with each question you ask, just like a human. But if it's a human, it's a particularly dishonest human who's often simply full of it.'

Really spoke to me. I've been working with these people my entire career. I reckon I'm one of the sometimes. I've also noticed it'll be adamant its correct even if its clearly wrong. Like the worst type of toxic employee. This is why I think its so key to understand what you're asking it to do. For me, for example, if I ask it to write me some code, I need to know how I'd write the code and then double check it. It's not to replace the skill of writing code, its essentially a hyperpowered autocomplete but you'd word not allowed well better check its work twice over!