GPT4 – Observations from Uppsala

ChatGPT and Legal

In previous three blog posts (1,2,3) about ChatGPT in particular and large language models in general, I touched on what they can do, what they cannot do, what they seem not to do, how they fall down in funny ways, and why I think they are fundamentally flawed for many applications. There is one more aspect left to consider – the legal and licensing side. I am not a lawyer, I am not an expert, but it seems obvious that there is a huge problem. There are also clear questions about business morals and what the right thing to do would be. I also doubt the business viability of LLMs in the way they are currently trained.

ChatGPT and Critique

ChatGPT and other transformer-based models like Dall-E are technologically very impressive. They do things that seemed totally impossible just a few years ago. However, they are not really generally intelligent, and there are innumerable problems with how they work, what they do, what people think they do, ethics, and legal and licensing issues. This is my third post about ChatGPT, where I present my critique of and reflections on the technology. The previous posts were about ChatGPT and Simics and Coding using ChatGPT.