Why tech insiders are so excited about ChatGPT, a chatbot that answers questions and writes essays

Published

2 years ago

December 13, 2022

admin

Sam Altman, co-founder and chief executive officer of OpenAI Inc., speaks during TechCrunch Disrupt 2019 in San Francisco, California, on Thursday, Oct. 3, 2019.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

For his day job, Tobias Zwingmann is the managing partner of RAPYD.AI, a German consulting firm that helps clients make use of artificial intelligence. On the side, Zwingmann teaches online courses on AI.

Lately, Zwingmann has been generating lecture notes using ChatGPT, a new chatbot that’s quickly become the latest fad in tech. Zwingmann said he recently asked ChatGPT to explain the mechanisms and workings of a machine learning technology known as a DBSCAN, which is short for density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise, because he is too “lazy to write it all down.”

“I went up and said, ‘OK, tell me a detailed step by step of how the DBSCAN algorithm works,’ and it gave me that step by step,” Zwingmann said.

After a little bit of polishing and editing, Zwingmann said the lecture notes were in good shape.

“This took me like 30 minutes, and before that I would have spent the whole day,” Zwingmann said. “I can’t neglect that this has proven to be hugely beneficial.”

ChatGPT debuted in late November and has quickly turned into a viral sensation, with people tweeting questions, such as “Are NFTs dead,” and requests like, “Tell a funny joke about the tax risks of international remote work.” They include a screenshot of ChatGPT’s response, which often — but not always — makes sense.

The technology was developed by San Francisco-based OpenAI, a research company led by Sam Altman and backed by Microsoft, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and Khosla Ventures. ChatGPT automatically generates text based on written prompts in a fashion that’s much more advanced and creative than the chatbots of Silicon Valley’s past.

In a year that’s turned into a dud for the technology sector, with mass layoffs, wrecked stock prices and crypto catastrophes dominating the headlines, ChatGPT has served as a reminder that innovation is still happening.

Tech layoffs double from October to November as DoorDash cuts headcount

Tech executives and venture capitalists have gushed about it on Twitter, some even comparing it to Apple’s debut of the iPhone in 2007. Five days after OpenAI released ChatGPT, Altman said that the chat research tool “crossed 1 million users!”

Back in 2016, tech giants like Facebook, Google and Microsoft were trumpeting digital assistants as the next evolution of human and computer interaction. They boasted of the potential for chatbots to order Uber rides, buy plane tickets and answer questions in a life-like manner.

Six years later, progress has been slow. The majority of chatbots that people interact with are still relatively primitive, only capable of answering rudimentary questions on corporate help desk pages or minimally helping frustrated customers understand why their cable bills are so high.

But with early ChatGPT adopters demonstrating the technology’s ability to carry a conversation through multiple queries in addition to generating software code, the world of so-called natural language processing appears to be entering a new phase.

What is ChatGPT?

ChatGPT is essentially a variant of OpenAI’s popular GPT-3.5 language-generation software that’s been designed to carry conversations with people. Some of its features include answering follow-up questions, challenging incorrect premises, rejecting inappropriate queries and even admitting its mistakes, according to an OpenAI summary of the language model.

ChatGPT was trained on an enormous amount of text data. It learned to recognize patterns that enable it to produce its own text mimicking various writing styles, said Bern Elliot, a vice president at Gartner. OpenAI doesn’t reveal what precise data was used for training ChatGPT, but the company says it generally crawled the web, used archived books and Wikipedia.

OpenAI declined to comment for this story.

Elliot said that for now ChatGPT is more of a way for OpenAI to gain publicity and to show what’s possible for large language models, as opposed to a useful piece of software for businesses to incorporate. While ChatGPT is free, OpenAI sells access to its underlying language and related AI models for businesses to use.

“ChatGPT, as currently conceived, is a parlor trick,” Elliot said. “It’s something that isn’t actually itself going to solve what people need, unless what they need is sort of a distraction.”

How bots are being deployed inside banks after a pandemic boom in fraud

However, Zwingmann isn’t alone in using ChatGPT for more advanced purposes.

Cai GoGwilt, the chief technology officer of digital contract management startup Ironclad, said his company is exploring how ChatGPT could be used to summarize changes to legal documents. The feature would be helpful for the startup’s legal clients, who routinely alter documents and then notify their colleagues after they made the changes, GoGwilt said.

GoGwilt said ChatGPT offers “more creative” responses compared to similar language models developed by big tech companies. Meta’s AI language tool, dubbed RoBERTa, seems more capable at categorizing and labeling text, GoGwilt said, adding that his company uses both GPT and RoBERTa to power certain features in its digital document software.

At legal research and data company LexisNexis, Min Chen, a vice president, said in an email that she and her team are just starting to test ChatGPT although they already use OpenAI’s GPT-3 software through Microsoft’s Azure cloud.

Chen said GPT-3 is more suitable for LexisNexis because it’s an enterprise product and can be customized. However, her team has been experimenting with ChatGPT and she said it sometimes generates “sensible answers” that are “very impressive.” Still, it has its flaws.

“I am afraid it’s not reliable enough as a decision-making tool for serious legal research,” Min said. “In some cases, ChatGPT will give a very verbose answer that seems to make sense, but the answer is not getting the facts right.”

There’s also the bias problem, which is true for many kinds of AI-powered software.

As Mozilla senior fellow Abeba Birhane shared on Twitter, ChatGPT produced song lyrics that implied women who wear lab coats are “probably just there to clean the floor,” whereas men wearing lab coats “probably got the knowledge and skills you’re looking for.”

Regarding ChatGPT’s limitations, OpenAI said in a blog post that while the firm is working to mitigate bias problems, the software “will sometimes respond to harmful instructions or exhibit biased behavior.”

Altman said in a tweet over the weekend that ChatGPT is “incredibly limited” and “it’s a mistake to be relying on it for anything important right now.”

Krishna Gade, CEO of AI model monitoring startup Fiddler, said ChatGPT and related language technologies could lead to big “disruptions in web search,” an area long dominated by Google.

Gade, who previously worked at Microsoft’s Bing search unit, said if ChatGPT’s popularity continues to grow along with other chat-based tools that answer questions, Google may have to update its core search technology to more prominently center on chat.

ChatGPT’s rising popularity shows there is a segment of the population that prefers getting information via question and answers as opposed to a typical search query.

Google parent Alphabet has plenty of AI talent and has helped develop some of the core AI technologies used to create systems like ChatGPT. The search engine is also a habit that’s very difficult to displace.

As Zwingmann notes, Google still has a major advantage over ChatGPT.

“The way it works currently is people use ChatGPT and then go to Google to verify the results,” Zwingmann said, with a laugh.

Here’s what happened when we typed in, “Write me a news story about ChatGPT in the style of CNBC.”

As of December 13, 2022, ChatGPT, the new language processing AI from OpenAI, is making waves in the tech industry. The advanced model, which is trained to generate human-like text, is already being hailed as a game-changer for businesses that rely on natural language processing.

ChatGPT’s ability to understand and respond to a wide range of topics has been particularly impressive, with some even suggesting that it has the potential to revolutionize the way we interact with technology. Many experts believe that ChatGPT’s advanced capabilities will be a valuable asset for companies in fields such as customer service, online education, and market research.

One of the key advantages of ChatGPT is its ability to learn and adapt quickly to new information. This means that it can be trained to handle new topics and tasks without the need for extensive retraining. Additionally, ChatGPT is highly scalable, which makes it well-suited for use in large-scale applications.
So far, the response to ChatGPT has been overwhelmingly positive, with many praising its advanced capabilities and ease of use. It remains to be seen how ChatGPT will be used in the coming years, but it’s clear that it has the potential to be a major player in the world of natural language processing.

WATCH: Silicon Valley’s betting big generative-AI companies-here’s why

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

23 hours ago

November 22, 2024

admin

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX.

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit.

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

1 day ago

November 22, 2024

admin

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform.

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much.

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms.

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively.

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually.

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different.

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center.

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training.

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Another unusual aspect of X’s new terms is its “liquidated damages” clause. The terms state that if users request, view or access more than 1 million posts – including replies, videos, images and others – in any 24-hour period they are liable for damages of $15,000.

While most individual users won’t easily approach that threshold, the clause is concerning for some, including digital researchers. They rely on the analysis of larger numbers of public posts from services like X to do their work.

X’s new terms of service are a “disturbing move that the company should reverse,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in an October statement.

“The public relies on journalists and researchers to understand whether and how the platforms are shaping public discourse, affecting our elections, and warping our relationships,” Abdo wrote. “One effect of X Corp.’s new terms of service will be to stifle that research when we need it most.”

Neither Threads nor Bluesky have anything similar to X’s liquidated damages clause.

Meta and X did not respond to requests for comment.

WATCH: Bluesky CEO: Our platform is ‘radically different’ from anything else in social media

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

1 day ago

November 22, 2024

admin

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.