让一个好的聊天机器人来回答这个问题
There’s a classic story that brings together two of the most notorious American political figures of the 20th century, 理查德·尼克松和乔·麦卡锡, and the syndicated muckraker who did as much as anyone to expose their transgressions, 《百家乐app下载》专栏作家德鲁·皮尔森. The story appears with slight variations in four different books by my count, 最近在Donald A. 里奇2021年出版的皮尔森传记 的专栏作家.
The incident occurred during a December 1950 soirée at Washington, D.C.豪华的索尔格雷夫俱乐部, when McCarthy and Pearson spent much of the evening trading barbs and nearly coming to blows before wives and friends intervened. 他们最后一次在索尔格雷夫衣帽间相撞, where a roaring drunk McCarthy pounded the columnist’s head and kneed him twice in the groin. 尼克松, 新参议员, arrived just in time to see McCarthy deliver another “head-snapping” slap to Pearson. 尼克松 stepped between the combatants and said, “Let a good Quaker break up this fight.” 尼克松 then walked a stumbling McCarthy out of the club and spent the next hour patiently searching the surrounding streets for McCarthy’s car, before helping his friend into the driver’s seat and sending him merrily on his way.
的专栏作家 讲述了这个故事最温和的版本, and although it doesn’t even mention 尼克松’s peacemaker line, the book sheds light on its apparent hale-fellow bonhomie that no other rendering does. 尼克松和皮尔逊都是贵格会教徒, but resentful targets of Pearson’s many career-crushing exposés liked to claim that the columnist was a fake Quaker who had opportunistically “thee’d and thou’d” his way out of serving in World War I. Knowing 尼克松 as a champion grudge-holder (and that Pearson was a charter member of 尼克松’s infamous enemies list), it’s hard to miss the likelihood that 尼克松 was mocking Pearson with the “good Quaker” line even as he was ostensibly saving him from McCarthy’s below-the-belt assault.
What’s fascinating about the multiple accounts is that they don’t so much contradict each other as reveal different dimensions of the incident and about the three consistently captivating (if not especially admirable) historical figures involved. Although I couldn’t quite figure out an effective way to ask it the question, with all of the recent chatter about OpenAI’s ChatGPT and the conviction of several writers I know that the AI conversational language bot will soon put them out to pasture, I wondered if ChatGPT could ever deliver the sort of context-enriched nuance that human historians provide through different research methods, 分析, 视角, and value assessments of which details of a story merit inclusion and which ones don’t.
I’ve seen a couple of pretty interesting ChatGPT experiments pertaining to 流媒体’s purview—queries on the differences between HLS and DASH or the relative merits of AV1 and HEVC and why or why not to deploy different codecs. The results appear accurate, although just a nuance or two off on some important points. So far, two unsolicited AI-generated “是什么 Streaming?”-type 文章 have reached my inbox, passed off as a human writer’s work. 两者都不是特别糟糕, but both were unmistakably missing the deep analysis and broad perspective that 流媒体 contributing editors supply in the definitive state-of-the-industry reports that populate this year’s 20th annual 原始资料.
如果“人工智能会抢走我们的工作吗??” question is premature, it’s also far from the most interesting topic these experiments raise. Rather, it’s how can we get better answers by asking better questions? 就像我在一月底写这篇文章一样, the Wharton School of Business has announced that the bot scored an unassisted B on an M.B.A. 期末考试. ChatGPT今天所能做的是了不起的. 它仍然是一个不断迭代的产品. The version OpenAI released to the world is only ChatGPT 3.5 (and the version that took the Wharton test was “only” 3.0).
What’s more, the mastery of nuance the bot currently lacks is by definition a game of inches. And it’s not as if humans communicate every subtle shade of meaning every time. Given that it took the combined efforts of no fewer than four historians to reveal the precise meaning of 尼克松’s seemingly innocuous “good Quaker” jab at Drew Pearson, who knows what the cumulative virtuosity of four or more iterations of ChatGPT will deliver?
相关文章
Based on what I'm hearing from a wide array of streaming producers, the heightened demand for streaming live events that we expected to be a natural outcome of its COVID-era ascendancy is either evaporating or simply hasn't materialized.
2023年6月7日