He ChatGPT is the great novelty in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in 2023. It is a chat that once the user “asks” about a topic, the platform responds with a consistent and coherent text of a few paragraphs.
This development has alerted academics, researchers, university students, and journalists. From this tool Anyone could “write” and give an opinion on any subject: the machine acts for you.
the linguist Noam Chomsky has stated that the ChatGPT supposes to accept “high-tech plagiarism”. In a column it is The New York Times Written with Ian Roberts and Jeffrey Watumull, he questions whether the term “intelligence” is applied to developments like ChatGPT.
Intelligence implies critical capacity and knowledge about what is written. In the column they appeal to Jorge Luis Borges, who ironically questioned the use of a lot of money for objectives as limited and schematic as trying to replace something as imbricated as the human mind.
The great criticism of Chomsky, Roberts and Watumull passes the chat acts based on rigid data that the assembled statistically. The logic of the system goes through managing trends, but it is incapable of considering unforeseen disruptions. There are no imaginable events for the ChatGPT. There’s your green kryptonite.
Based on hard data, the ChatGPT assembled statistically, but it is impossible to consider unforeseen disruptions
The Argentine philosopher Alejandro Piscitelli deals exhaustively with the subject in his already classic blog Filosofitis. He returns to Borges by stating that we are creating a golem, an other of externality intended for us that gives us a certain illusion for solving the problems that we have created for ourselves. Analyze in detail under what circumstances the chat can be useful and when it is a fiasco.
ChatGPT, the new wave
Those who live obsessed with fake news and misinformation have now found a new source of contemporary communicative males. The university papers that are related to ChatGPT with the degradation of democracy and the quality of information at the service of the citizen are already being written.
The use of “machines” to help us solve problems is inherent to the human being. We are tempted to create our Adam, our Frankenstein, our “robot”. Deep Blue seemed to finally achieve the goal when in 1996 he defeated Garry Kasparov in a game. As in failed contests, there is an invitation to continue participating.
is Gulliver’s Travels Jonathan Swift devised a faulty machine that could produce coherent text. The development at the Lagado Academy allowed that “… thanks to his invention, the most ignorant person, for a reasonable price and with a little bodily effort, can write books on philosophy, poetry, politics, law, mathematics and theology, without He does not need the help of talent or study at all”.
Francisco Vico, professor of Artificial Intelligence at the University of Malaga, developer Iamus, The first computer that could compose music without the human being. The first version was born in 2010 and was called “Opus one”.
Vico’s program was in honor of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart who, in turn, would have designed an ingenious dice system (Musikalisches Würfelspiel) for compose works randomly. Each dice represented a musical fragment that could be combined to give rise to a short composition. Anyone who wants to try their own Mozartean composition can enter
Artificial intelligence and ChatGPT
One thing is certain: Artificial Intelligence is here to stay and expand. And besides, few of those who theorize glimpse are suitable will be the uses they will put to common people.
What could bring about the abusive and crude use of the ChatGPT and other chats and similar developments? By case, teachers who prepare class topics based on chat and that the evaluations are answered by the students with external help.
EITHER lawsuits before courts written by chat and signed by lawyers that culminate in judicial sentences where the judge delegates the administration of justice to his computer. Softs, computer interfaces that interact with each other, would they make much of a difference with what already exists? Yes or no, however you look at it.
ah It is necessary to clarify that this column was not written with the help of ChatGPT. Side Florencia Salvarezza, human (still)who sent me the article by Chomsky, Roberts and Watumull.
PhD in Sociology (UCA). Professor UCA, UNTREF, UCES
You may also like
