Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Captain_Clark t1_j8x3v5r wrote

Which is fine. I merely wish to suggest to you, that if you consider ChatGPT to be intelligent, you devalue your own intelligence and your reason for having it.

Because by your own description, you’ve already implied that ChatGPT is more intelligent than you.

So I’d ask: Do you really want to believe that a stack of code is more intelligent than you are? It’s just a tool, friend. It only exists as human-created code, and it only does one thing: Analyze and construct human language.

Whereas, you can be intelligent without using language at all. You can be intelligent by simply and silently looking at another person’s face.

And the reason I’m telling you this is because I consider it dangerous to mistake ChatGPT for intelligence. That’s the same fear you describe: The devaluing of humanity, via the devaluing of human labor. But human labor is not humanity. If it were so, we could say that humans who do not work are not intelligent - even though most of us would be perfectly happy if we didn’t have to work. Which is why we created ChatGPT in the first place.

It once required a great deal of intelligence to start a fire. Now, you may start a fire by easily flicking a lighter. That didn’t make you less intelligent than a lighter.

3

anti-torque t1_j8xj33k wrote

I think the concern is its adaptability to collate data for business. It can essentially do middle-management tasks, given controlled inputs.

I think people forget that being a manager of people is hard enough. Shedding or reducing the paperwork might give business the time to allow managers to actually interact with their teams more efficiently.

3