Readit NewsAt this point it is kind of moot because if Twitter won't pay the fee, they obviously won't pay the judgement issued against them.
Not that I think Super Intelligence can be aligned anyway.
Point is, whether they are right or wrong, I believe they genuinely think this to be an issue.
Depending on the assignment you aren't necessarily expected to read anyone else's take on a book and you aren't expected to make sure you are saying something that hasn't been said before or anything like that.
You are simply expected to analyze the book and offer an interpretation.
And it's not like that's the only way to use the AI. With a few minutes of effort, I just got CHATGPT to write an essay using "post-colonial theory" to interpret the Wizard of Oz, which was pretty interesting.
This isn't a field like engineering where there are objective right and wrong answers and anyone dies if you pass the students who are not so great at writing essays on literature.
"As a literary critic, describe how Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is a religious figure."
The divine being contained within I would think would match Buddhism pretty well.
The reference to relics is too vague to pin down to any religion, there's probably lots of examples of it in lots of religions. If I had to defend it off the top if my head I'd compare the Ruby slippers to the "holy moly" herb Athena gives Odysseus to defend him from Circe.
If anything I think GPT went wrong saying strength is one of the virtues associated with the Lion. It would be much easier to focus on courage and say he needs to learn to be like a brave apostle who says things like "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me:"
My point wasn't that this essay was particularly good, necessarily, only that it was was good enough for undergraduate work.
Well, apart from the fact that chatGPT is really incapable of developing a thought, and also apart from the fact that half will fail to delete sentences like "I'm a language model, so I can't..." (insert gist of question here), it's painfully obvious if something is LLM generated.
The moment a sentence like "it's crucial to remember" pops up, I know what this is. Then, there's also the element that it always sounds like it's speaking to a child, and it avoids actually saying things unequivocally without some sort of disclaimer, as the legal department's CYA filter will ensure.
I remain thoroughly unimpressed by the entire venture. If this is Skynet 1.0, we're all safe for centuries to come.
I just asked Chat GPT 4 to explain the religious significance of the Wizard of Oz as a literary critic. Here's some of what it gave me, it doesn't write anything like you claim it does:
"Moreover, Dorothy's companions -- the Scarecrow seeking a brain (wisdom), the Tin Man seeking a heart (love/compassion), and the Lion seeking courage (strength) -- symbolize spiritual virtues that are often extolled in religious texts. They embark on this quest together, mirroring the communal aspect of many religions.
The slippers (silver in the book, ruby in the film) can be viewed as sacred objects, or relics, that assist her in her journey, providing divine protection and eventually leading her to salvation (returning home).
Finally, the revelation that the Wizard is a mere mortal, and that Dorothy had the power to return home all along, imparts a spiritual lesson often found in religious narratives: the divine or the sacred is not external, but within us."
If I was a student I could have easily expanded on these concepts (with or without GPT) and turned in a good essay.
Deleted Comment