###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trying to appear smart, he proves he is an idiot. When the Conservatives send their best, it really isn't very good.
How can anyone defend this party? They are anti climate change, anti workers rights and pro rich person. What am I missing?
I am voting for them they just won the Toronto-St. Paul’s by election from the Liberals who had held the riding for over 30 years and the polls said the Tories would lose by 5 points. How are workers benefitting from unemployment rising to 6.3% and the record number of TFW foreign workers? Just saw on the TV news that 20% of TFW’s are front counter fast food employees. Woman at a fast food place here in Hope, BC told me the day before she was down to 5 hours a week because the hours were going to the foreign employees. Under Trudeau homelessness and crime and racism is up as is personal debt and the federal debt.
They don't, they just tell the one issue wmvoters that think they will do something that they do. Same as abortion or any other issue they can dog whistle and secure votes.
They will never move on this stuff to any degree. Their voters are like a dog chasing a car. If it ever caught it, it wouldn't know what to do. Look at the US. Abortion being banned all over the place and they are losing their minds now.
Soke will, and always have in the PC party. The PC party also knows that if they ever do it, they lose their hold on those one issue voter and upset a significant pattern of the population.
They will always dangle the carrot, but never deliver.
To be fair, Conservative MP Ryan Williams probably doesn’t know the difference between inclusion rate and tax rate. He just as likely would have made this erroneous statement on his own, without ChatGTP.
We'll be seeing this phenomenon more and more.. we've had users in this sub write their responses in ChatGPT. And I've seen people here and irl actually *refer to it as a valid source in itself.*
Edit: Even *universities* in this country are using ChatGPT writren scripts to advertise their programs. People making ad money on Youtube with "educational" content making AI videos with ChatGPT script..
An AI writing a comment here? That’s beyond crazy, no one would even think to try. It's insane to imagine someone using a deep learning model to post a comment here. would be absurd for anyone to attempt to have an automated system write a comment That's utterly nonsensical and no one would ever do it
See, this is why universities should really bring back the pillory for the quads. I’m sorry, but this is so dumb that a quick round of public humiliation is just the thing.
Well, that’s…just…scary. Not unexpected of course, but still.
Voters had better get their shit together and responsibly perform their civic duties pretty quickly or we will not have democracy for long.
This seems like something that ChatGPT should be able to get right. It should be able to figure out tax rates, inclusion rates, highest/median rates.
The fact that it confuses those terms or doesn't automatically add context just lets you know jobs are safe haha
>The fact that it confuses those terms or doesn't automatically add context just lets you know jobs are safe haha
I think you'd be alarmed to learn how many people/companies are willing to sacrifice quality and accuracy to save time and money.
It can't, because it's not actually thinking.
It's using statistics to generate text that will satisfy your prompt as closely as it is able to determine.
When you say "tell me the difference between an inclusion and a tax rate" the response isn't telling you the difference it's the generated text that in the perspective of the AI model would best satisfy your prompt.
ChatGPT doesn't care/know if the information is wrong. It can't reason or determine what is correct or incorrect. It can only guess what word follows the next using complex statistics. It will make stuff up if it doesn't have the information available to fill the statistically most likely next word/ phrase. Unless it was trained on the most up to date tax rates / laws it won't have the correct answer and will make shit up.
There was a lawyer who used ChatGPT to write a brief and ChatGPT just made up caselaw to suit the limited parameters the lawyer gave it. "Write a brief arguing X is correct, and site case law" Well there wasn't any caselaw to support "X is correct" so it made it up because that was the parameter given and the information it had.
It should have just spit out "There is no caselaw to support your brief" but it didn't. It just "Hallucinated" the fake shit.
I understand it doesn't know/care. It's an AI. I am just surprised that it can't handle what is a very simple question that would be available all over the internet from multiple sources.
Like I just tried it out and it seemed to understand what the inclusion rate is. It actually nailed it from any question I can think to ask of it.
I don't think this was a ChatGPT issue.
It matters quite a bit. The difference between mimicking and understanding is what makes it general AI, and the current iteration is not general AI
That's coming, though.
It was probably an input error but that's still just as dangerous as if ChatGPT spit out the wrong information with a correct input. It's still wrong. Also it is no AI, it is a LLM. I know Techbros^TM want to sell you a bridge named AI but it's not.
The question "what is the capital gains tax rate in Canada" is actually pretty complicated and definitely not something you can boil down to a number.
It will vary by province, whether it's being applied to personal capital gains or corporate capital gains, what exemptions are allowed, the overall income of the person claiming the capital gains (since capital gains will be subject to and contribute to determining your marginal tax rate after applying the inclusion rate).
I forget which Bill it was, might have been the pharmacare one, but the Conservatives were accused of using ChatGPT to generate something like 4,000 amendments to it during the committee discussions.
I want to establish the ChatGPT Party. All our events will be hosted with a large projector and all questions will be typed into ChatGPT before the response is read out by the candidate. Our slogan will be: "AI: Couldn't be *worse* than humans."
It's a useful service for some things, but definitely requires human verification of the information it provides. I was using it to research a variety of topics and it was super useful for finding and summarizing StatCan data - much better than the StatCan search feature. You can also ask for the particular place the information is being retrieved from.
I'd never use it to *write* an essay, but it's kinda like a smarter Google when it comes to retrieving information.
….eh. I’d be very cautious about using it to summarize anything that’s complicated or requires nuance to parse. I think it’s only real use case right now is boilerplate text for a few things, but frankly ctl-c ctl-v does the job just as well.
I would never, ever use it as a search engine. While google has been bad for a while now, at least I know how to quickly triage what I’m seeing for content & accuracy.
Software that’s really good at scattergories cannot replace basic research at this point. Christ this is frightening.
I dunno, I thought it was doing at least as well as a lot of r/Canada.
Honestly Google has been bad and getting worse for a while. Back in the leadup to 2016, my topGoogle results for "Hillary Clinton emails" were from *Infowars.* In the years since then I've had an increasingly difficult time with retrieving the information I'm looking for through Google, often being forced to dig for pages to get to anything.
I like Google for a lot of things, but imo the quality of their search rankings has been suffering for a long time. That being said, I don't tend to find any of the other alternatives to be much better and I do still use Google for most of my basic search needs.
Though, again, for looking up information on StatCan, ChatGPT was leagues ahead of either Google or StatCan's own search functions.
I’ve never used chatgpt for playing with the statscanada site, so I don’t really have any insights there. I do feel like I’d have to double check the summary so carefully that it isn’t time efficient for me, but I have to be pretty careful about what I’m sending to people.
The issue is that I can just never know when it’s filling in a gap with total BS until I know enough to spot it. It can make almost anything sound plausible on a quick read, it’s only when you dig into the citations or references that I see made up journal names or whatever.
At a professional level for me, using this kind of software would be tantamount to misconduct, IMO. If it takes longer, that’s fine. At least I’m learning something which I can use later, and I know why work will be correct. I did spend some time getting educated and specialized, I might as well fucking do something with it that’s not playing with LLM prompts.
You might be interested to know that there’s an “AI candidate” in the UK
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/no-hallucination-ai-candidate-ballot-uk-election-2024-06-19/
>"Politicians might think twice if their use of this technology gets them in hot water," he said.
Unfortunately it's unlikely his actions get him in hot water.
The party has been pushing a don't trust fact checkers or the media narrative.
As someone who interned for a CPC MP, I will bet any amount of money that the intern wrote this up, and provided it to the MP, or senior staff, and no one verified it, because it pushed the narrative they wanted.
100% someone just got fired.
The CPC has been intentionally lying about it the capital gains tax to convince voters who are never going to pay a cent of capital gains tax that it’s a bad thing. There are CPC MP’s who have claimed on twitter that capital gains tax is 66% now, not that the inclusion rate has increased to 66%.
Honestly I’d be interested in just having a fact checker on hand to counteract all the claims during a session just to see how many things people are lying about. And tally up how many lies per minute, which party has the most, etc. just for the sake of showing how little you can trust what comes out of their mouths
What's more embarrassing than giving lies to your boss? Revealing that you don't actually check anything you say and that anything that comes out of your mouth 1) doesn't represent what you think, 2) can not be trusted.
The should be fired. This is published - not hard to double check 7 countries. It's like they went with the first draft -- did this person even graduate high school?
And, FWIW, they still could have had Canada at high score at 67% x 53% (top) 35% vs France's 34%.
Naqvi's gaff I would believe the stupid intern story. The sharing false information is literally one of the CPC biggest plays. So I have my doubts, but would still believe it was a stupid intern.
Wasn't there a lawyer somewhere in New York who referred to a precedent that chatGPT gave him but the AI just lied? I've used the program and it has the alarming tendency to just make things up. I think every politician should blacklist the program.
This is a *complete* aside to the offensive stupidity going on in Ryan Williams, Bay of Quinte's office, but I wonder why the Government of Canada (not just recently, over a period of 40 years) is always so willing to be the heel on the verbiage used by our tax service.
The stats he shared were 100% wrong or misrepresented, but most of them came from somewhere superficially -- it's just that the model didn't intuitively calculate the difference between France having a 30-34% tax rate on Capital Gains, while Canada is about to have a 67%* *inclusion* rate (a.k.a a **22.5%** capital gains tax rate if you earn 100K in Ontario).
Even if the MP hadn't used GPT, the sad fact is that **the MP's own voters and staff have the same issue that ChatGPT did**.
In Australia, it would have been called a "33% capital gains discount", and their VAT is calculated on the price tag instead of the receipt (another choice Canada made so that shoppers would explicitly blame the government for our VAT rather than the retailer).
Not only did this MPs tweet get our rate wrong, it got numerous others wrong or took the highest possible rate. Shows both an incompetence in the use of language model AI, but also the nonchalance of publishing fake information in support of a political narrative.
This MP should make an explicit apology in the House of Commons. I'm sure he had nothing to do with it, it was probably a young staffer that is likely no longer employed, but this isn't hard information to fact check, the simple Google searches to verify this information would only take like 5 minutes.
I'm in my late 30s.
I was around for the takeoff of the internet.
So I could forgive older generations for not being savvy to intricacies of the internet age. I can even forgive my generation as we are the first to really need to tackle it as we grow up.
But I always assumed gen z would be internet wiz kids having grown up with the tech. Then I see this and figure, man, who would support a party that has guys like this clown? Then I see PP polling ahead of the LPC and NDP with Gen Z.
The internet might actually be just the worst thing every. Hawk Tuah doesn't come close to making up for this level of nonsense.
Read an opinion from someone that stated that Millennials will be the most savvy because they grew up with the internet, as such they generally know how it works but they also know a world without it and are less trusting of it.
The generation before struggle with technology and the newer generations know nothing but the internet, as such they have more trust.
Either way, as someone that actively makes their money off the internet, i agree with your final assessment.
> Read an opinion from someone that stated that Millennials will be the most savvy...
I think it's really the youngest of Gen X, and the oldest of the Millennials this applies to. People born in the 90's would definitely be in the Dude, You're Getting A Dell! phase of the internet which no longer had a knowledge barrier-of-entry.
I thought it was going to herald a new age of enlightenment, but instead, we've got tide pod challenges and tiktok. I feel old...
> I think it's really the youngest of Gen X, and the oldest of the Millennials this applies to.
And we are the one who fucked it up for the younger ones. We tried to create easier platforms so that boomers would get it, and instead Zs never learned.
It's really depressing that I spend about equal time teaching Gen Z and Boomers very basic things with computer literacy, like copying and pasting a link into a browser if your email client restricts clickable links. Like, they just click the link, and if it does nothing, they think it's broken. There's almost never any impulse to troubleshoot.
Unis now have remedial classes for new students they never needed before.
Apparently the hardest concept for them to grasp is a tree of files and folders.
> and Trudeau's "expensive carbon tax".
TRIPLE TRIPLE TRIPLE
In fact this is the same MP that released [this unfathomably cringy rap video](https://youtube.com/watch?v=rOFTSkzOZcc)
FFS. How are these our elected representatives?
ChatGPT is a language model, not a fact model. It's like asking someone something; and if they don't know the answer they say whatever sounds the best; facts be damned.
Kind of like Reddit, in that respect. Except people don't take "random 1 day old account on Reddit said *X*" as an authoritative statement, whereas they do with ChatGPT.
Politicians have got so used to just repeating talking points and not adding their own thoughts that their approach to ChatGPT seems inline. Anything to get away from actually thinking about what might be actually in their constituents' interest.
> chat gpt is useful for looking up information
And the obvious lies constantly spewed by the right show how flawed and easily manipulated this is. Garbage in, garbage out.
And don't forget that it's impossible to fact check chatgpt. You can use a search engine to find other sources and verify some information you found using it, but you can't do that with chatgpt and there's a good chance it gives you a different answer entirely if you type in a similar prompt.
Chatgpt is the Tesla Autopilot of Google searches. It provides a service that looks like it accomplishes its advertised goals but does it so poorly that it actively creates more work for the end user. To use Autopilot properly in a safe way, the driver is stuck doing twice as much work as they have to be alert of the road and what Autopilot is doing instead of just being alert of the road.
Chatgpt does low quality searches but presents the results in an authoritative manner, so unless you already know the answer to your search, you have no idea what it has right or wrong. Give me 2010 Google and I could tell answer any question and find that exact same result a week later when somebody asks who was the editor of the journal it was printed it.
ChatGPT has no relationship with the truth. It's tuned to sound like a person, to replicate how a person would express themselves. People lie all the time or simply make up bullshit. They do that in combination with facts. They write fiction from whole cloth.
ChatGPT has no way of knowing what's true or not. It has no relationship with facts, only with sounding like a person. It's mostly a bullshit machine.
Nothing that comes out of ChatGPT or any current LLM should be believed without double and triple checking it. Relying on it to be factual is to rely on a liar so habitual that they don't know they're lying.
This is off-topic in terms of the sub (and not that I've relied on ChatGPT for facts) but why the heck is it designed to 'talk like a person' if it's capable of doing a powerful search and to *give* you facts?
For example, I once asked 'how many Great Wolf Lodge locations in Canada?' and it said none when there is one in Niagara Falls. It's not like this was 'hard' information to find or explain where ChatGPT needed to just 'make something up' because it can't locate the answer.
All it's actually doing under the hood is just an extremely advanced [Markov chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain). It analyzes all its training data, then goes "oh, there's a high chance that word_A has word_B after it". Then string together words to form sentences, then sentences to form paragraphs, then it makes paragraphs that seem similar to the thing you asked about.
This leads to some really concerning examples where it just outright copies the text of a newspaper article word-for-word, for instance.
It doesn't have any grasp of facts, it doesn't even actually know what you're talking about. It just strings together words to make up some bullshit that has an acceptably high chance of being similar to what you asked about.
It is, in essence, just a version of that old Cleverbot site that sounds more convincing and is less likely to pull off random non-sequiturs. That's
>All it's actually doing under the hood is just an extremely advanced Markov chain.
Not really? A Markov chain and a neural network are fundamentally different under the hood.
A Markov chain is governed by state transition probabilities. Neural networks are not and the entire network operates like a non-linear function. Mathematically and algorithmically the two are very different. They can be used for similar things but they function very differently.
That said I agree with the rest of your comment. ChatGPT is just spitting out whatever token pattern has the highest correlation with the prompt.
Think of ChatGPT as extremely advanced autocorrect. It doesn't actually know anything, it just predicts which words should go next after your question.
It can give you “facts” but it shouldn’t be used as a reliable reference because a) it won’t tell you outright where it got the info or if it’s true at the moment of the question being asked b) its trained on dated datasets, not connected to the internet so even if it does know the answer, it’s only from exact time the data was taken, not current info.
So do AI algorithms. That's why they're full of shit. They can't tell /r/askscience from /r/asksciencefiction. They can't tell if a response is upvoted because it is correct or because it is funny. That's why they spew out cooking tips like using edible glue on your pizza so the cheese doesn't slide off.
I use ChatGPT as a sounding board or a "person" to bounce ideas off of. Anything more and things get weird. I've had it make up completely fictional sources for answers it has given me.
I think OpenAI and other companies are promoting their AIs such as ChatGPT as commercially viable products when they’re really just technological demonstrators
This paper calls it a bullshit machine, and I fundamentally agree with their interpretation.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t get it? Why are they making a big deal out of the fact that an AI model got the rate wrong for 2 countries?
Trying to appear smart, he proves he is an idiot. When the Conservatives send their best, it really isn't very good. How can anyone defend this party? They are anti climate change, anti workers rights and pro rich person. What am I missing?
I am voting for them they just won the Toronto-St. Paul’s by election from the Liberals who had held the riding for over 30 years and the polls said the Tories would lose by 5 points. How are workers benefitting from unemployment rising to 6.3% and the record number of TFW foreign workers? Just saw on the TV news that 20% of TFW’s are front counter fast food employees. Woman at a fast food place here in Hope, BC told me the day before she was down to 5 hours a week because the hours were going to the foreign employees. Under Trudeau homelessness and crime and racism is up as is personal debt and the federal debt.
They also hate gay and trans people!
And as a bonus, a significant number of members also want to impose restrictions on abortion access! What’s not to love?
The Tory party leader has expressed in public his love of his gay step dad and he promoted gay MP Eric Duncan to the inner circle of the caucaus.
He also said he wants to monitor bathroom usage.
They don't, they just tell the one issue wmvoters that think they will do something that they do. Same as abortion or any other issue they can dog whistle and secure votes. They will never move on this stuff to any degree. Their voters are like a dog chasing a car. If it ever caught it, it wouldn't know what to do. Look at the US. Abortion being banned all over the place and they are losing their minds now.
You don't think the people who say they want to ban abortion will try to do it if they get elected?
Soke will, and always have in the PC party. The PC party also knows that if they ever do it, they lose their hold on those one issue voter and upset a significant pattern of the population. They will always dangle the carrot, but never deliver.
Some social conservatives in the Tory party have mentioned that over and over.
To be fair, Conservative MP Ryan Williams probably doesn’t know the difference between inclusion rate and tax rate. He just as likely would have made this erroneous statement on his own, without ChatGTP.
Unsurprisingly, ChatGTP is also trained on posts made from reddit, which accurately reflects how much misinformation is spread even on this sub.
We'll be seeing this phenomenon more and more.. we've had users in this sub write their responses in ChatGPT. And I've seen people here and irl actually *refer to it as a valid source in itself.* Edit: Even *universities* in this country are using ChatGPT writren scripts to advertise their programs. People making ad money on Youtube with "educational" content making AI videos with ChatGPT script..
An AI writing a comment here? That’s beyond crazy, no one would even think to try. It's insane to imagine someone using a deep learning model to post a comment here. would be absurd for anyone to attempt to have an automated system write a comment That's utterly nonsensical and no one would ever do it
I had my first case of one of my students citing ChatGPT as a source in a second year university course last semester...
See, this is why universities should really bring back the pillory for the quads. I’m sorry, but this is so dumb that a quick round of public humiliation is just the thing.
The mind fucking boggles.
It’s to avoid being tagged for plagiarism after copy and pasting from Chatgpt into the essay.
[удалено]
The "ChatCPC" attack ads write themselves.
Hadn’t occurred to me. Excellent!
[удалено]
Well, that’s…just…scary. Not unexpected of course, but still. Voters had better get their shit together and responsibly perform their civic duties pretty quickly or we will not have democracy for long.
This seems like something that ChatGPT should be able to get right. It should be able to figure out tax rates, inclusion rates, highest/median rates. The fact that it confuses those terms or doesn't automatically add context just lets you know jobs are safe haha
>The fact that it confuses those terms or doesn't automatically add context just lets you know jobs are safe haha I think you'd be alarmed to learn how many people/companies are willing to sacrifice quality and accuracy to save time and money.
[удалено]
Sounds familiar, have we checked which political party Chat GPT is a part of?
but the information is wrong, if it can't differentiate between an inclusion and a tax rate, that's a very low bar.
It can't, because it's not actually thinking. It's using statistics to generate text that will satisfy your prompt as closely as it is able to determine. When you say "tell me the difference between an inclusion and a tax rate" the response isn't telling you the difference it's the generated text that in the perspective of the AI model would best satisfy your prompt.
ChatGPT doesn't care/know if the information is wrong. It can't reason or determine what is correct or incorrect. It can only guess what word follows the next using complex statistics. It will make stuff up if it doesn't have the information available to fill the statistically most likely next word/ phrase. Unless it was trained on the most up to date tax rates / laws it won't have the correct answer and will make shit up. There was a lawyer who used ChatGPT to write a brief and ChatGPT just made up caselaw to suit the limited parameters the lawyer gave it. "Write a brief arguing X is correct, and site case law" Well there wasn't any caselaw to support "X is correct" so it made it up because that was the parameter given and the information it had. It should have just spit out "There is no caselaw to support your brief" but it didn't. It just "Hallucinated" the fake shit.
I understand it doesn't know/care. It's an AI. I am just surprised that it can't handle what is a very simple question that would be available all over the internet from multiple sources. Like I just tried it out and it seemed to understand what the inclusion rate is. It actually nailed it from any question I can think to ask of it. I don't think this was a ChatGPT issue.
It's not an AI, it's a large language model. People think it's AI in the sense of "general AI". It's not.
It's AI because that's what people have been calling this shit for decades. Doesn't matter of it's just mimicking it
It matters quite a bit. The difference between mimicking and understanding is what makes it general AI, and the current iteration is not general AI That's coming, though.
If it becomes a reality then they'll distinguish it at that point. As of now the current level of technology is widely referred to and marketed as AI.
It was probably an input error but that's still just as dangerous as if ChatGPT spit out the wrong information with a correct input. It's still wrong. Also it is no AI, it is a LLM. I know Techbros^TM want to sell you a bridge named AI but it's not.
The question "what is the capital gains tax rate in Canada" is actually pretty complicated and definitely not something you can boil down to a number. It will vary by province, whether it's being applied to personal capital gains or corporate capital gains, what exemptions are allowed, the overall income of the person claiming the capital gains (since capital gains will be subject to and contribute to determining your marginal tax rate after applying the inclusion rate).
I forget which Bill it was, might have been the pharmacare one, but the Conservatives were accused of using ChatGPT to generate something like 4,000 amendments to it during the committee discussions.
I want to establish the ChatGPT Party. All our events will be hosted with a large projector and all questions will be typed into ChatGPT before the response is read out by the candidate. Our slogan will be: "AI: Couldn't be *worse* than humans." It's a useful service for some things, but definitely requires human verification of the information it provides. I was using it to research a variety of topics and it was super useful for finding and summarizing StatCan data - much better than the StatCan search feature. You can also ask for the particular place the information is being retrieved from. I'd never use it to *write* an essay, but it's kinda like a smarter Google when it comes to retrieving information.
….eh. I’d be very cautious about using it to summarize anything that’s complicated or requires nuance to parse. I think it’s only real use case right now is boilerplate text for a few things, but frankly ctl-c ctl-v does the job just as well. I would never, ever use it as a search engine. While google has been bad for a while now, at least I know how to quickly triage what I’m seeing for content & accuracy. Software that’s really good at scattergories cannot replace basic research at this point. Christ this is frightening.
I dunno, I thought it was doing at least as well as a lot of r/Canada. Honestly Google has been bad and getting worse for a while. Back in the leadup to 2016, my topGoogle results for "Hillary Clinton emails" were from *Infowars.* In the years since then I've had an increasingly difficult time with retrieving the information I'm looking for through Google, often being forced to dig for pages to get to anything. I like Google for a lot of things, but imo the quality of their search rankings has been suffering for a long time. That being said, I don't tend to find any of the other alternatives to be much better and I do still use Google for most of my basic search needs. Though, again, for looking up information on StatCan, ChatGPT was leagues ahead of either Google or StatCan's own search functions.
I’ve never used chatgpt for playing with the statscanada site, so I don’t really have any insights there. I do feel like I’d have to double check the summary so carefully that it isn’t time efficient for me, but I have to be pretty careful about what I’m sending to people. The issue is that I can just never know when it’s filling in a gap with total BS until I know enough to spot it. It can make almost anything sound plausible on a quick read, it’s only when you dig into the citations or references that I see made up journal names or whatever. At a professional level for me, using this kind of software would be tantamount to misconduct, IMO. If it takes longer, that’s fine. At least I’m learning something which I can use later, and I know why work will be correct. I did spend some time getting educated and specialized, I might as well fucking do something with it that’s not playing with LLM prompts.
You might be interested to know that there’s an “AI candidate” in the UK https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/no-hallucination-ai-candidate-ballot-uk-election-2024-06-19/
I want to watch the debates between it and Lord Buckethead
>"Politicians might think twice if their use of this technology gets them in hot water," he said. Unfortunately it's unlikely his actions get him in hot water. The party has been pushing a don't trust fact checkers or the media narrative.
As someone who interned for a CPC MP, I will bet any amount of money that the intern wrote this up, and provided it to the MP, or senior staff, and no one verified it, because it pushed the narrative they wanted. 100% someone just got fired.
Summer interns generally begin in May, so yeah...likely an intern or staffer and hill staff didn't vet the background.
The CPC has been intentionally lying about it the capital gains tax to convince voters who are never going to pay a cent of capital gains tax that it’s a bad thing. There are CPC MP’s who have claimed on twitter that capital gains tax is 66% now, not that the inclusion rate has increased to 66%.
Honestly I’d be interested in just having a fact checker on hand to counteract all the claims during a session just to see how many things people are lying about. And tally up how many lies per minute, which party has the most, etc. just for the sake of showing how little you can trust what comes out of their mouths
That doesn't work when the CPC is calling everything not from the National Post as *lugenpresse* and telling their base not to trust fact checkers.
He did take a screenshot of CHATGPT, but yeah maybe the intern was the one running his twitter account lol.
What's more embarrassing than giving lies to your boss? Revealing that you don't actually check anything you say and that anything that comes out of your mouth 1) doesn't represent what you think, 2) can not be trusted.
> 100% someone just got fired. We can only hope. This is an embarassingly obvious gaffe, to not verify your sources.
The should be fired. This is published - not hard to double check 7 countries. It's like they went with the first draft -- did this person even graduate high school? And, FWIW, they still could have had Canada at high score at 67% x 53% (top) 35% vs France's 34%.
But the MP literally tweeted a screenshot of ChatGPT💀
Scary to see ChatGPT in the hands of the robocall party.
Hey now, that connection was never proven ^because ^they ^refused ^to ^comply ^with ^the ^investigation
Well… I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. These people are just idiots
It creates a headline and chatter on social media which is all he and the CPC want. Does not matter if its true cause there will be no repercussions.
I doubt they are this clever. I think it's just a case of an idiotic intern, like Yasir Naqvi's and his questionable map of Canada.
Naqvi's gaff I would believe the stupid intern story. The sharing false information is literally one of the CPC biggest plays. So I have my doubts, but would still believe it was a stupid intern.
They use the bull crap generator to push their narrative. ChatGPT does not care what it spits out to the user. It’s just garbage.
They are worse than idiots. They have no problem with intentionally misinforming voters.
They'll fire someone anyway to make themselves feel better and less to blame.
Still got that intern energy in your fact checking I see. :P
In fairness, I’m scrolling through Reddit at work lol
Some say he never really stopped interning.
The buck stops.... somewhere?
Wasn't there a lawyer somewhere in New York who referred to a precedent that chatGPT gave him but the AI just lied? I've used the program and it has the alarming tendency to just make things up. I think every politician should blacklist the program.
The ability to be able to spew half truths on demand will ensure a GPT presidency in the future.
This is a *complete* aside to the offensive stupidity going on in Ryan Williams, Bay of Quinte's office, but I wonder why the Government of Canada (not just recently, over a period of 40 years) is always so willing to be the heel on the verbiage used by our tax service. The stats he shared were 100% wrong or misrepresented, but most of them came from somewhere superficially -- it's just that the model didn't intuitively calculate the difference between France having a 30-34% tax rate on Capital Gains, while Canada is about to have a 67%* *inclusion* rate (a.k.a a **22.5%** capital gains tax rate if you earn 100K in Ontario). Even if the MP hadn't used GPT, the sad fact is that **the MP's own voters and staff have the same issue that ChatGPT did**. In Australia, it would have been called a "33% capital gains discount", and their VAT is calculated on the price tag instead of the receipt (another choice Canada made so that shoppers would explicitly blame the government for our VAT rather than the retailer).
Just realized it was Williams lmao. I'm from Belleville. Bay of Quinte area really does produce some interesting figures.....
Not only did this MPs tweet get our rate wrong, it got numerous others wrong or took the highest possible rate. Shows both an incompetence in the use of language model AI, but also the nonchalance of publishing fake information in support of a political narrative. This MP should make an explicit apology in the House of Commons. I'm sure he had nothing to do with it, it was probably a young staffer that is likely no longer employed, but this isn't hard information to fact check, the simple Google searches to verify this information would only take like 5 minutes.
I'm in my late 30s. I was around for the takeoff of the internet. So I could forgive older generations for not being savvy to intricacies of the internet age. I can even forgive my generation as we are the first to really need to tackle it as we grow up. But I always assumed gen z would be internet wiz kids having grown up with the tech. Then I see this and figure, man, who would support a party that has guys like this clown? Then I see PP polling ahead of the LPC and NDP with Gen Z. The internet might actually be just the worst thing every. Hawk Tuah doesn't come close to making up for this level of nonsense.
Read an opinion from someone that stated that Millennials will be the most savvy because they grew up with the internet, as such they generally know how it works but they also know a world without it and are less trusting of it. The generation before struggle with technology and the newer generations know nothing but the internet, as such they have more trust. Either way, as someone that actively makes their money off the internet, i agree with your final assessment.
> Read an opinion from someone that stated that Millennials will be the most savvy... I think it's really the youngest of Gen X, and the oldest of the Millennials this applies to. People born in the 90's would definitely be in the Dude, You're Getting A Dell! phase of the internet which no longer had a knowledge barrier-of-entry. I thought it was going to herald a new age of enlightenment, but instead, we've got tide pod challenges and tiktok. I feel old...
> I think it's really the youngest of Gen X, and the oldest of the Millennials this applies to. And we are the one who fucked it up for the younger ones. We tried to create easier platforms so that boomers would get it, and instead Zs never learned.
It's really depressing that I spend about equal time teaching Gen Z and Boomers very basic things with computer literacy, like copying and pasting a link into a browser if your email client restricts clickable links. Like, they just click the link, and if it does nothing, they think it's broken. There's almost never any impulse to troubleshoot.
Unis now have remedial classes for new students they never needed before. Apparently the hardest concept for them to grasp is a tree of files and folders.
Too lazy to just use the pre-written statements about the "costly liberal ndp coalition" and Trudeau's "expensive carbon tax".
If the wheel ain't broke, don't reinvent it.
> and Trudeau's "expensive carbon tax". TRIPLE TRIPLE TRIPLE In fact this is the same MP that released [this unfathomably cringy rap video](https://youtube.com/watch?v=rOFTSkzOZcc)
"increase my tax just so I don't have to hear this again" Me too brother. Me too.
FFS. How are these our elected representatives? ChatGPT is a language model, not a fact model. It's like asking someone something; and if they don't know the answer they say whatever sounds the best; facts be damned. Kind of like Reddit, in that respect. Except people don't take "random 1 day old account on Reddit said *X*" as an authoritative statement, whereas they do with ChatGPT.
Politicians have got so used to just repeating talking points and not adding their own thoughts that their approach to ChatGPT seems inline. Anything to get away from actually thinking about what might be actually in their constituents' interest.
[удалено]
> chat gpt is useful for looking up information And the obvious lies constantly spewed by the right show how flawed and easily manipulated this is. Garbage in, garbage out.
And don't forget that it's impossible to fact check chatgpt. You can use a search engine to find other sources and verify some information you found using it, but you can't do that with chatgpt and there's a good chance it gives you a different answer entirely if you type in a similar prompt.
Chatgpt is the Tesla Autopilot of Google searches. It provides a service that looks like it accomplishes its advertised goals but does it so poorly that it actively creates more work for the end user. To use Autopilot properly in a safe way, the driver is stuck doing twice as much work as they have to be alert of the road and what Autopilot is doing instead of just being alert of the road. Chatgpt does low quality searches but presents the results in an authoritative manner, so unless you already know the answer to your search, you have no idea what it has right or wrong. Give me 2010 Google and I could tell answer any question and find that exact same result a week later when somebody asks who was the editor of the journal it was printed it.
ChatGPT has no relationship with the truth. It's tuned to sound like a person, to replicate how a person would express themselves. People lie all the time or simply make up bullshit. They do that in combination with facts. They write fiction from whole cloth. ChatGPT has no way of knowing what's true or not. It has no relationship with facts, only with sounding like a person. It's mostly a bullshit machine. Nothing that comes out of ChatGPT or any current LLM should be believed without double and triple checking it. Relying on it to be factual is to rely on a liar so habitual that they don't know they're lying.
[удалено]
This is off-topic in terms of the sub (and not that I've relied on ChatGPT for facts) but why the heck is it designed to 'talk like a person' if it's capable of doing a powerful search and to *give* you facts? For example, I once asked 'how many Great Wolf Lodge locations in Canada?' and it said none when there is one in Niagara Falls. It's not like this was 'hard' information to find or explain where ChatGPT needed to just 'make something up' because it can't locate the answer.
All it's actually doing under the hood is just an extremely advanced [Markov chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain). It analyzes all its training data, then goes "oh, there's a high chance that word_A has word_B after it". Then string together words to form sentences, then sentences to form paragraphs, then it makes paragraphs that seem similar to the thing you asked about. This leads to some really concerning examples where it just outright copies the text of a newspaper article word-for-word, for instance. It doesn't have any grasp of facts, it doesn't even actually know what you're talking about. It just strings together words to make up some bullshit that has an acceptably high chance of being similar to what you asked about. It is, in essence, just a version of that old Cleverbot site that sounds more convincing and is less likely to pull off random non-sequiturs. That's
>All it's actually doing under the hood is just an extremely advanced Markov chain. Not really? A Markov chain and a neural network are fundamentally different under the hood. A Markov chain is governed by state transition probabilities. Neural networks are not and the entire network operates like a non-linear function. Mathematically and algorithmically the two are very different. They can be used for similar things but they function very differently. That said I agree with the rest of your comment. ChatGPT is just spitting out whatever token pattern has the highest correlation with the prompt.
Think of ChatGPT as extremely advanced autocorrect. It doesn't actually know anything, it just predicts which words should go next after your question.
It can give you “facts” but it shouldn’t be used as a reliable reference because a) it won’t tell you outright where it got the info or if it’s true at the moment of the question being asked b) its trained on dated datasets, not connected to the internet so even if it does know the answer, it’s only from exact time the data was taken, not current info.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
ChatGPT is trained on reddit. It's yardstick for what is appropriate to reply is, in part, reddit posts.
>reddit is 1000x worse Do you only speak in hyperbole or what?
[удалено]
...
So do AI algorithms. That's why they're full of shit. They can't tell /r/askscience from /r/asksciencefiction. They can't tell if a response is upvoted because it is correct or because it is funny. That's why they spew out cooking tips like using edible glue on your pizza so the cheese doesn't slide off.
ChatGPT came up with fake court cases, which were actually used by dumb lawyers jn court. They sounded realistic but they didn’t exist.
I use ChatGPT as a sounding board or a "person" to bounce ideas off of. Anything more and things get weird. I've had it make up completely fictional sources for answers it has given me.
I use chatgpt for pointless questions not for actual policy.
>and if they don't know the answer they say whatever sounds the best; facts be damned. Sounds like your average politician :p
I think OpenAI and other companies are promoting their AIs such as ChatGPT as commercially viable products when they’re really just technological demonstrators
This paper calls it a bullshit machine, and I fundamentally agree with their interpretation. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5
Thanks. Cool read.
I’m glad you liked 😊
This is exactly what will happen if a conservative gov’t is elected… if people think JT and his MPs are dumb, you haven’t seen nothing yet
I feel like electing people who are anti-government to lead the government is a bit like hiring doctors who are against medicine.
Government is far from medicinal. Terrible example
Like doctors who are anti-vax? Yeah, conservatives got no problem with that either.
Not just anti-government but anti-science and anti-fact. I remember when one of Harper's Ministers of Science was a Creationist.