Yep, makes sense. You don’t want a researcher using the same tool as a lawyer or fiction writer. The researcher needs AI to summarize existing literate in a factual way, the lawyer needs to source actual cases, while the writer needs novel combinations of existing literary ideas. A single tool isn’t going to meet all those needs.
Why would we want one? We don’t have a single social media tool: forums, link aggregators, micro blogging, networking, etc. are all separate tools. We wouldn’t want to do all of those on Facebook.
ChatGPT is just a demo of a technology that can be used for all sorts of cool things. Trying to make ChatGPT do it all isn’t really needed nor desirable.
I do think it’s desirable. It’s unnecessary for users to keep track of which tool is best for which purpose if one tool can do it all. There’s no reason why one tool wouldn’t be able to; even in the worst case it could just automatically choose the best tool to answer your prompt, saving you the trouble of doing so.
The tools would be integrated into things we already use.
I’m a doctor, and our EMR is planning to start piloting generative text for replies to patient messages later this year. These would be fairly informal and don’t need to be super medically rigorous, needing just a quick review to make sure the AI doesn’t give dangerous advice.
However, at some point AI may be used in clinical support, where it may offer suggestions on diagnoses, tests, and/or medications. And here, we would need a much higher standard of evidence and reproducibility of results as relying on a bad medical decision here could lead to serious harm.
These are already in two different sections of the medical chart (inbox vs. encounter, respectively) and these would likely be two separate tools with two separate contexts. I would not need to memorize two tools to use the software: in my inbox, I’ll have my inbox tools, and in my encounter, I’ll have my encounter tools, without worrying about exactly what AI implementation is being used in the background.
Yep, makes sense. You don’t want a researcher using the same tool as a lawyer or fiction writer. The researcher needs AI to summarize existing literate in a factual way, the lawyer needs to source actual cases, while the writer needs novel combinations of existing literary ideas. A single tool isn’t going to meet all those needs.
A single tool isn’t going to meet all those needs yet
Why would we want one? We don’t have a single social media tool: forums, link aggregators, micro blogging, networking, etc. are all separate tools. We wouldn’t want to do all of those on Facebook.
ChatGPT is just a demo of a technology that can be used for all sorts of cool things. Trying to make ChatGPT do it all isn’t really needed nor desirable.
I do think it’s desirable. It’s unnecessary for users to keep track of which tool is best for which purpose if one tool can do it all. There’s no reason why one tool wouldn’t be able to; even in the worst case it could just automatically choose the best tool to answer your prompt, saving you the trouble of doing so.
The tools would be integrated into things we already use.
I’m a doctor, and our EMR is planning to start piloting generative text for replies to patient messages later this year. These would be fairly informal and don’t need to be super medically rigorous, needing just a quick review to make sure the AI doesn’t give dangerous advice.
However, at some point AI may be used in clinical support, where it may offer suggestions on diagnoses, tests, and/or medications. And here, we would need a much higher standard of evidence and reproducibility of results as relying on a bad medical decision here could lead to serious harm.
These are already in two different sections of the medical chart (inbox vs. encounter, respectively) and these would likely be two separate tools with two separate contexts. I would not need to memorize two tools to use the software: in my inbox, I’ll have my inbox tools, and in my encounter, I’ll have my encounter tools, without worrying about exactly what AI implementation is being used in the background.
That’s literally their point. You have a specialised tool for each.
Being general makes them much harder to train and worse at each individual task.
And they meant that in the further future, even that might stop being a problem.