Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

atomic14.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#31

Post by ben_w »

urthor wrote: post #24
lmarcos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is not what we (techies) think about the usefulness of ChatGPT. The point is that managers will definitely think ChatGPT is worth doing... Just like they think Jira/Scrum/Agile/etc. is worth our time. I definitely see management paying for ChatGPT.

It's also not about how good ChatGPT is now. How good will ChatGPT be in 5 years? It's scary to imagine.

It’s also impossible to imagine correctly. Back in 2009, I was completely convinced that we’d be able to go into a car dealership and buy a brand new vehicle which had no steering wheel because the self-driving AI was just that good, within 10 years. Seemed reasonable at the time on the basis of the DARPA Grand Challenge results, but even 13 years later, it didn’t happen.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#32

Post by bigDinosaur »

codingdave wrote: post #27

I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I'm simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened. ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn't know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a s…

Asking it to convert 32 to binary was a bit of an eye opener. It gave me multiple completely incorrect ways of doing so (resulting in 0100 or something each time) despite me informing it it was wrong. It'd say things like 'the 24th place, then the 23rd place are 0's which just made no sense in terms of the query (I suppose technically correct if you really want to pad left) - but I had to think about it because it was saying superficially plausible things (like '24' seems somehow relevant because it's 8+16, but of course that's totally irrelevant to the actual question).

That said in other respects it is pretty amazing, so I'll definitely not dismiss it, it can replace Google for a fairly decent set of queries so long as you know the subject matter well enough.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#33

Post by gsatic »

The only people whose minds this is "blowing" are people who have never had to build or maintain question answering systems.

ChatGPT is like having a bunch of 8 year olds who know how to use Google hanging around.

Sure you can use them, and their skills might surprise u every now and then, but that has nothing to do with how much time you are going to waste on the answers they will get wrong.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#34

Post by Semaphor »

O__________O wrote: post #22
h11h wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem to be the future, but, at the moment, it's very unreliable. The worst thing is that it's all said with confidence and it would be very hard to know when things are wrong unless you already know. For example: Q. How many people spoke French in pre-revolutionary France? A. It is difficult to determine the exact number of people who spoke French in pre-revolutionary France. The population of France at the t…

To be fair, Wikipedia also “speaks with confidence” and makes no attempt to make it easy to understand exactly how confident one should be in the facts presented. At one point they had said the would, but never did to my knowledge. Google has TrustRank, but to my knowledge it’s on a source-level basis, not fact-level basis.

> At one point they had said the would, but never did to my knowledge.

I think autocorrect or something mangled your sentence beyond recognition.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#35

Post by FerociousTimes »

O__________O wrote: post #22
h11h wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem to be the future, but, at the moment, it's very unreliable. The worst thing is that it's all said with confidence and it would be very hard to know when things are wrong unless you already know. For example: Q. How many people spoke French in pre-revolutionary France? A. It is difficult to determine the exact number of people who spoke French in pre-revolutionary France. The population of France at the t…

To be fair, Wikipedia also “speaks with confidence” and makes no attempt to make it easy to understand exactly how confident one should be in the facts presented. At one point they had said the would, but never did to my knowledge. Google has TrustRank, but to my knowledge it’s on a source-level basis, not fact-level basis.

The bot got it unequivocally wrong here.

When it said that the vast majority of the population of what's now modern-day France spoke modern French as their native language, that's categorically false and shouldn't be treated with leniency or open to interpretations.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#36

Post by bigDinosaur »

urthor wrote: post #23
notart666 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really can't and it doesn't really work the way you think it does which is ironic that you'd think people on this site would be informed but I guess ycombinator has a financial conflict of interest in doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if they make posts on this topic with a very heavy bias like they do for a lot of their own investments. I remember being shown this software almost a decade ago in dealing with chat…

While it's never going to replace the man behind the machine. It still seems highly likely that "stitching libraries together" development workflows in 10-15 years will involve large amounts of copy-editing the output of large language models. The trajectory of improvements, from GitHub Copilot to ChatGPT, is too steep.

Web development workflows honestly are often already at the stage of stitching together the output of large language models (Stack Overflow being the most well known such language model). I'm still surprised it pulls the salaries it does.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#37

Post by rightbyte »

xiphias2 wrote: post #29
rightbyte wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is terrible. Spam will be terrible. The internet infrastructure for interperson communication will be dead as it works today. You will never know of you write to e.g. a sales rep or a bot if the conversation is shallow. Support call centers will be decimated to bot chats. Thankfully the bot does not speak my language so I can watch the shitshow from the other side the fence.

Are you sure the bot doesn't speak your language? I tried Hungarian, which is only spoken by 10 million people, and it's speaking it great.

No I just assumed it did not ... I guess I am on the same side of the fence then.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#38

Post by highwaylights »

optimalsolver wrote: post #26
iamflimflam1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Write a job description for ChatGPT prompt engineer --- The ChatGPT Prompt Engineer will be responsible for designing and implementing effective prompts for the ChatGPT natural language processing system. This will involve working closely with other members of the team to identify areas for improvement and developing creative solutions to enhance the performance of the system. Key responsibilities for the ChatGPT Pro…

Must have at least 5 years GPT experience.

Nicely done.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#39

Post by brushfoot »

risyachka wrote: post #18
jhoelzel wrote: post #6

So err, this whole IT thing has been nice for the last decades. Maybe we have another decade until it can handle its own fingers...

It has value only if you know what it is talking about, thus it can only assist. If you ask it about AWS - you need to already know AWS, same with business etc. And if you can't make your own elevator pitch - the odds that you will be able to run a successful company are little to none. Website builders and ready-to-use templates have been around for decades and they only increased the demand for devs. Even if GPT wi…

To add to this - GPT is good at synthesizing existing information, but it's bad at combining it in truly novel ways.

OP's startup idea is in a well-understood domain. There are lots of existing competitors offering basically that exact service. There are clear, obvious paths to building it. GPT can draw from blog posts and tutorials.

On the other hand, it does poorly with significantly novel ideas. I tried it with one I've been working on that combines 3D printing and crafting in new ways. Its answers just regurgitated blog posts about existing combinations. It even ignored the grammar of my questions, which switched the usual direct object with the object of the preposition. Which makes sense, because it isn't doing critical thinking - it's pattern matching.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#40

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

codingdave wrote: post #27

I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I'm simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened. ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn't know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a s…

Not yet. But the speed of development seem to be increasing, same with something like Midjourney.
Post reply on HN