111–120 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm asking what makes it worse.
Volume. Volume is the difference. It's so easy to generate an incorrect, but confident answer with ChatGPT that it makes it so much harder for SO provide a valuable service.
But it also routinely provides very useful answers, and you can ask it to fix bugs you find.
I assume that within the next two years, Stack Overflow will be overtaken by a similar site that defaults to Chat-GPT-like AI answers, and has incentives for human programmers to train it by checking or improving its answers.
Unless the Stack Overflow people decide to do something like that themselves.
But even this version of ChatGPT often has amazing code answers, and if you could put it in a loop with a compiler/JavaScript runtime that could go pretty far.
I imagine a couple more years of larger/better models (maybe with some visual understanding of UIs) etc., and the website will just be "write, test and deploy this entire program for me, here is a list of requirements" -- taking out a lot of not only Stack Overflow's business but also Upwork etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so, especially for StackOverflow. I want correct answers, not answers that just look correct.
Yep. Stable diffusion is powerful because there's no "right answer". Just better/worse variations of a prompt. GPT is going to be amazing for telling stories. Particularly, for "too literal" software engineers, like me. However, it doesn't seem to offer much in terms of hard, factual information that technical fields rely on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens when you give it the Lisp code and ask ChatGPT to do the transpiling?
Good question. Let's try it. Here is some Lisp code I know cannot be duplicated as-is in C: (defun num-atoms(list) (cond ((null list) 0) ((atom list) 1) (t (+ (num-atoms (car list)) (num-atoms (cdr list)))))) And here's the C code that ChatGPT created from it. #include #include typedef struct list_node { int data; struct list_node *next; } list_node; int num_atoms(list_node *list) { if (list == NULL) { return 0; } el…
(+ (num-atoms (car list)) (num-atoms (cdr list)))
return num_atoms(list->next) + num_atoms(list->next->next);
(+ (num-atoms (cdr list)) (num-atoms (cddr list)))
Yeah I know, humans will team up with bots and praise the new chat overlords.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Stable diffusion is powerful because there's no "right answer". Just better/worse variations of a prompt. GPT is going to be amazing for telling stories. Particularly, for "too literal" software engineers, like me. However, it doesn't seem to offer much in terms of hard, factual information that technical fields rely on.
Hard disagree on the storytelling abilities at least with the current capabilities I found the storytelling to be extremely predictable, linear and not really able to come up with unusual or interesting plots... Which makes sense considering that these large scale language models represent the diluted sum of human generated content and most humans are by definition relatively mundane, as are the works that they produ…
But so is modern TV (that includes streaming services for the nitpickers) and look how much money they're making...
What is the mechanism by which a text is determined to originate from ChatGPT? This will be crucial for preventing unfavorable training loops among a myriad of other human-led control efforts.
The mechanism is if it reads like a middle school MLA formatted essay. I'd say at least 50% of the answers returned from chat GPT I've seen have ended with the phrase "in conclusion" or "overall".
Just finished Neil Stephenson's Anethem. In it (I'm paraphrasing here) the open internet is destroyed by media companies who flood the internet with "good garbage", that is stuff that is _almost_ correct. It forced people to pay for curated accurate content (that is, pay the same people who generated the good garbage in the first place).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
prompt: write a short essay as a scientist which is better, celsius or fahrentheit partial answer which some faulty reasoning about precision: First, the Celsius scale is based on a more intuitive and logical reference point. The Celsius scale sets the freezing point of water at 0 degrees and the boiling point of water at 100 degrees, whereas the Fahrenheit scale sets the freezing point of water at 32 degrees and the…
Perfect. This kind of junk is going to litter our collective knowledge bases for years. It looks just good enough to be authoritative, but is fundamentally incorrect.