131–139 of 139 posts
Let's admit that HN's culture is that many of us are confidentially wrong, which we cover up with impressive technical jargon. As such, any wrong answer in this AI is in fact correct.
> confidentially wrong, which we cover up with impressive technical jargon I get the feeling this comment is self-referential/self-parodying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, for statistics and visualization I think R and its packages are (sometimes) superior. But GPT responses don't generally offer those kinds of nuances; the claim is that the packages are "more mature," period. And it's for good reason that the _most_ mature Python packages, e.g. numpy and pandas, are used by data scientists in production pretty much everywhere.
amazingly, your comment will eventually be added to the CHatGPT corpus and at some point down the line may be used to add the nuance that's currently lacking :)
As is often true of GPT responses, there's some nonsense interspersed here, e.g. the claim that R has "a more mature package universe" than Python. I think this is false, but if you're reading quickly, it sounds cogent enough. As Sarah Constantin observed about GPT2 [0]: > if you skim text, you miss obvious absurdities. The point is OpenAI HAS achieved the ability to pass the Turing test against humans on autopilot..…
My experience with ChatGPT thus far is that it is as intelligent as a very broadly read person who just doesn't reeeally get the complex or nuanced aspects of the content it reads - much like many real Humans.
As is often true of GPT responses, there's some nonsense interspersed here, e.g. the claim that R has "a more mature package universe" than Python. I think this is false, but if you're reading quickly, it sounds cogent enough. As Sarah Constantin observed about GPT2 [0]: > if you skim text, you miss obvious absurdities. The point is OpenAI HAS achieved the ability to pass the Turing test against humans on autopilot..…
I think it's important to remember that Humans who are not-too-smart can also sound coherent, yet also babble complete nonsense. My experience with ChatGPT thus far is that it is as intelligent as a very broadly read person who just doesn't reeeally get the complex or nuanced aspects of the content it reads - much like many real Humans.
"After eighteen years of being a professor, I’ve graded many student essays. And while I usually try to teach a deep structure of concepts, what the median student actually learns seems to mostly be a set of low order correlations. They know what words to use, which words tend to go together, which combinations tend to have positive associations, and so on. But if you ask an exam question where the deep structure answer differs from answer you’d guess looking at low order correlations, most students usually give the wrong answer."
Made me smile
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, that language could be very improved. This is not a GPT-like LLM whose training corpus is HN comments, which I found to be an extremely interesting idea. Instead, it looks like it's finds relevant HN threads and tells GPT-3 (the existing model) to summarize them. To be clear, I think this is still very cool, just misleading.
Soon we will see language style transfer vectors, akin to the image style transfer at the peak of the ML craze 5-10 years ago -- so you will be able to take a HN snark vector and apply it to regular text, you heard it here first ;)
AI: of course .. here is your bash script (220 lines long)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah got it. Perhaps they should edit the intro then, it's misleading.
I agree, that language could be very improved. This is not a GPT-like LLM whose training corpus is HN comments, which I found to be an extremely interesting idea. Instead, it looks like it's finds relevant HN threads and tells GPT-3 (the existing model) to summarize them. To be clear, I think this is still very cool, just misleading.
Build a model off of that?