41–50 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t it easier to type the cmds then to write all that? Obviously it is if you know them .
"gitgpt make me a sandwich" isn't going anywhere fast. Understanding what you can tell gitgpt to do is extremely adjacent to knowing actual git commands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps explain to the person you are responding to why you disagree with them instead of making passive-aggressive jabs at their intellect
I don’t disagree with them. Reality disagrees with them. When LLMs “hallucinate” they don’t do so in random ways like somehow deciding to “rm -rf /“. They do so in predictable ways. What, am I supposed to handhold every person in these forums until they stop reading garbage on the internet and start either doing their own empirical research or at least read other empirical research? Edit: Apparently the answer is yes…
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you get tired of respectfully explaining why people are wrong, then you can always stop commenting and go get some fresh air. What you should not do is lash out aggressively with zero explanation for why you feel so strongly about this.
Some tools should be as dumb as possible so that act as extensions of the user with zero tolerance.
Play and buffer between intent and action creates a long tail of potentially disastrous unknown edge cases and also interferes with the feedback loop that prevents mastery.
Memorizing git commands to get it just-so is usually a chore so this is pretty helpful. Still wouldn't trust it w/o double checking the output cmd though.
That looks cool, though I'd be very concerned about the possibility about ChatGPT "hallucinating" a `rm -rf /` or equivalent.
Just run all the git commands by another GPT bot that determines whether it would be harmful first. GPT bots all the way down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t disagree with them. Reality disagrees with them. When LLMs “hallucinate” they don’t do so in random ways like somehow deciding to “rm -rf /“. They do so in predictable ways. What, am I supposed to handhold every person in these forums until they stop reading garbage on the internet and start either doing their own empirical research or at least read other empirical research? Edit: Apparently the answer is yes…
The first two guidelines for this forum are these: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you get tired of respectfully explaining why people are wrong, then you can always stop commenting and go get some fresh air. What you should not…
Funny enough, I reviewed your comment history and you seem to be of the same opinion as the person I was responding to…
…could that have perhaps motivated your patronizing tone?
Not sure what value it adds though. Isn’t it easier to type the cmds then to write all that? If there’s a good product in it I’m afraid your examples aren’t selling it :S Was first thinking it could have value for when you forget a cmd or when learning, but I think if you can come up with those technical instructions you can also remember the cmds …
A colleague of mine didn't know that it was possible to revert a commit without commiting (so, leaving the reverted changes in the staging area). In such ocassions you either a) search in google, b) read the manual, c) ask a colleague But with a command line tool like Gitgpt I guess one could just do: > gitpgt "revert commit without commiting" and the command line tool would answer "git revert --no-commit COMMIT_ID_H…
Not sure what value it adds though. Isn’t it easier to type the cmds then to write all that? If there’s a good product in it I’m afraid your examples aren’t selling it :S Was first thinking it could have value for when you forget a cmd or when learning, but I think if you can come up with those technical instructions you can also remember the cmds …
People are bad at Git, people don't want to read the Git book to understand Git, so for long time many people's workflow was "type quesion on how to do something in git into google and copy-paste first answer" (which generally worked). So for developer using it 8h a day, yeah, funny toy, but might actually be useful for every other git usage when users don't want to understand graph theory just to commit some changes…
Should we really trust Google's search AI, which is also always under attack by SEO spam, to give reliable results?
I have about as much trust in Google's result page as in ChatGPT responses. I don't trust Google to give me exactly what I'm really looking for, so I force myself to look for a number of sources which corroborate a claim.
I am increasingly considering self-hosting a YaCy instance configured with a curated whitelist of allowed domains (in this case, I might add the GitHub docs and/or the Atlassian git docs pages to be certain that I'm reading valid and up-to-date instructions when searching for git-related topics).
That looks cool, though I'd be very concerned about the possibility about ChatGPT "hallucinating" a `rm -rf /` or equivalent.
When LLMs “hallucinate” they don’t do so in random ways like somehow deciding to “rm -rf /“. They do so in predictable ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When LLMs “hallucinate” they don’t do so in random ways like somehow deciding to “rm -rf /“. They do so in predictable ways.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Given that GPT3 has 175 billion nodes, how would you even begin to support the claim that it never (or sufficiently rarely) does things that are surprising to humans?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03629
But you can get a general feel by using ChatGPT. Open up a new conversation and ask it something like, "What is the capital of France?". Note the response. Open up a new conversation and note the response. Soon enough you should be able to see that the responses are far from random.
You can use the OpenAI APIs directly and have it run 10,000 or so iterations to see what kind of "hallucinations" it makes! They are not random!