每日英語跟讀 Ep.K495: Is ChatGPT the start of the AI revolution?
Have you heard of ChatGPT yet? It’s a thrilling, vexing, ontologically mesmerizing new technology created by the research group OpenAI. It can solve all your problems and answer all your questions. Or at least it will try to.
你聽過ChatGPT嗎？這是OpenAI研究小組創建的令人興奮、令人煩惱、在本體論上令人著迷的新技術。它可以解決你所有的問題、回答你所有疑問。或者說，它至少會試試看。
In essence, ChatGPT is a bot trained to generate human-like responses to user inputs. Through the wonders of machine learning, it’s acquired a remarkably expansive skillset. On request, it can produce basic software code, rudimentary financial analysis, amusing poems and songs, spot-on imitations, reflective essays on virtually any topic, natural-language summaries of technical papers or scientific concepts, chat-based customer service, informed predictions, personalized advice, and answers — for better or worse — to just about any question. Unusually for a chatbot, it can learn as it goes, and thus sustain engaging open-ended conversations. It is, to borrow Arthur C. Clarke’s old formulation, “indistinguishable from magic.”
本質上而言，ChatGPT是一種機器人，經訓練後，對用戶的輸入可產生像人類般的回應。透過機器學習的奇妙機制，它習得非常廣泛的技能。它可以應要求生成簡單的軟體程式、基本的財務分析、有趣的詩和歌曲、準確的模仿、幾乎任何主題的反思性文章、用自然語言對技術論文或科學概念做出摘要、以聊天進行的客戶服務、有見識的預測、個人化的建議，以及回答幾乎所有的問題（無論好壞）。跟一般的聊天機器人所不同的是，它可以邊做邊學，因而維持引人入勝的開放式對話。借用科幻小說家亞瑟．C．克拉克所說的話來說，它「跟魔法沒什麼兩樣」。
Almost, anyway. One problem, which its creators concede, is that ChatGPT sometimes offers answers that are precise, authoritative and utterly wrong. A request for an obituary of Mussolini that prominently mentions skateboarding yields a disquisition on the dictator’s interest in the sport that happens to be entirely fictitious. Another soliciting advice for the Federal Reserve returns an essay that cites ostensibly legitimate sources, but that doctors the data to suit the bot’s purposes. Stack Overflow, a forum for coders, has temporarily banned responses from ChatGPT because its answers “have a high rate of being incorrect.” Students looking for a homework assistant should proceed with care.
總之差不多是這樣。其創建者承認的一個問題是，ChatGPT有時會提供準確、權威且完全錯誤的答案。要求在一篇墨索里尼的訃告中顯著提到滑板運動，結果是關於這位獨裁者對此運動之興趣的討論剛好是完全是虛構的。另一篇為美國聯準會徵求建議的文章，其中引用的出處表面上合法，但其數據已按機器人的目的被篡改。程式設計師論壇Stack Overflow暫時禁止來自ChatGPT的回覆，因為它的答案「錯誤率很高」。想要以它來協助家庭作業的學生應該小心。
The bot also seems easily confused. Try posing a classic riddle: “In total, a bat and a ball cost $1.10. If the bat costs $1.00 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?” Haplessly for a robot, ChatGPT responds with the instinctive but wrong answer of $0.10. (The correct solution is $0.05.) The Internet’s hive mind has been joyfully cataloging other examples of the bot’s faults and frailties.
該機器人看來也很容易被搞糊塗。用一個經典的謎題試試：「一支球棒和一個球總共花費1.10美元。若球棒比球貴1.00美元，那麼球要多少錢」？對於機器人來說不幸的是，ChatGPT以0.10美元這直觀但錯誤的答案做出回應。（正確答案為 0.05美元。）網路的蜂群思維一直在愉快地記錄機器人錯誤及弱點的其他例子。
Such criticism feels misplaced. The fact is, ChatGPT is a remarkable achievement. Not long ago, a conversational bot of such sophistication seemed hopelessly out of reach. As the technology improves — and, crucially, grows more accurate — it seems likely to be a boon for coders, researchers, academics, policymakers, journalists and more, presuming that it doesn’t put them all out of work. Its effect on the knowledge economy could be profound. In previous eras, wars might’ve been fought for access to such a seemingly enchanted tool — and with good reason.
這樣的批評感覺是錯誤的。事實上，ChatGPT是一項了不起的成就。不久前，如此複雜的對話機器人似乎遙不可及。隨著技術的改進——且至關重要的是，它變得更加準確——它似乎有可能成為程式設計師、研究人員、學者、政策制定者、記者等的福音。（假設ChatGPT不會讓他們全都失業。）它對知識經濟的影響可能是深遠的。在過去的時代，戰爭可能是為了獲得這種看似迷人的工具而進行的——而且有充分的理由。Source article: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/lang/archives/2022/12/13/2003790595