Hello everyone, Time flies and we’re entering week 8! This week, we’ll focus primarily on exploring the social and ethical questions of LLMs. The diversity and complexity of these issues are well-reflected in our second debate and our readings for the week. As outlined in the syllabus, I recommend starting with a quick review […]
Continue reading →Similar to how I appreciate Prof. Goldsmith’s work, I really appreciate lectures like this by Prof. Andrew Abbott that draws on the historical and social tendency of knowledge, knowing, academic and scholarly affairs that spans over a long time. (It must require years of experience and comprehensive knowledge to be able to give a talk […]
Continue reading →I am fascinated with Yang et al.’s paper on the potential of LMMs and the variety of tasks they show promising potential in. Here are some of the questions I have: Regarding replicability and consistency: I wonder if the examples provided can be replicated with similar/identical prompts with reasonable variance. The example that GPT-4V can […]
Continue reading →In this week’s response I will focus on the TED talk given by OpenAI’s co-founder, Ted Brockmen. A few observations that I had: For the vast majority of people, the most direct and intuitive way to showcase the potential of ChatGPT is still a simple live demo like the one Mr. Brockmen did; while to […]
Continue reading →I express my deepest appreciation and gratitude for Goldsmith and Laks to express their understanding (in a way, their philosophy of the history of cognitive science) on the role of history and the significance of studying it in approaching a discipline. It is such a good paragraph that I will copy it here: “One of […]
Continue reading →I’d like to begin by sharing some thoughts on Petter’s article concerning ChatGPT’s role in annotating political tweets, drawing parallels with my own experiences. This summer, one of my internship projects involved categorizing various country reports using a predefined set of categories, which numbered over twenty. My initial approach was to employ ChatGPT for zero-shot […]
Continue reading →Reading Deshpande et al.’s paper on toxicity in ChatGPT has only resulted in more questions about how ChatGPT comes to these responses when being assigned certain personas. Some results are unsurprising, such as having ChatGPT take the persona of Adolf Hitler, who people almost universally agree was a bad person and therefore, ChatGPT’s responses while […]
Continue reading →Last week’s debate concerned the prompt “AI Will Bring More Creativity and Innovation than Risks and Dangers”, with Colby, Fady, and Risabh affirming the claim and Louisa, Sophie, Seth and me opposing it. From the beginning, I was surprised by how opinions varied on specific topics related to AI, even within the teams. Both sides […]
Continue reading →At the end of Week 5, we had a debate on whether ChatGPT and similar AI tools would have net positive or negative impacts on higher education. Half of the class participated — I myself was a speaker on the negative side. The prompt recommended that we focus on the ideas put forth by sociologist […]
Continue reading →Hello Everyone, As we enter week 7, we’ll conclude our discussions on individual experiments with ChatGPT on Monday – if you didn’t talk last time, please get prepared on Monday. After the discussion, we’ll delve into the intricacies of Dall.E.3, which will serve as our prime examples of Large Multimodal Models’ creativity. Wednesday […]
Continue reading →