81–90 of 307 posts
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.
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…
It's almost more astonishing to me to see reactions like yours. I showed it to a friend and she too was unimpressed because it gave answers in her field (finance) that were "good, but sortof basic". So we have here a chat bot that pretty much passes for a human and some people react with "meh, it's not a genius". It makes me think of Tim Urbans chart: https://imgs.search.brave.com/YR7qt28AjhAeXSr_qvSmJubqIKJW5S...
But you might say ChatGPT is like talking to a human who actually knows nothing about finance but doesn't let that stop them (and for that matter, if you wanted to anthropomorphize it, you could say part of the problem is ChatGPT literally "believes" everything it reads online - and you can easily make it "believe" anything through leading wording, which I think is a strong tool for strengthening the Turing test, since no human will respond that way). Sometimes they might luck into being correct, but you wouldn't want to base any information on what they say.
On the other hand, if I actually wanted reliable finance advice, a scripted finance chatbot would still win because those answers are written by people who do know what they're talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At one point they had said the would, but never did to my knowledge. I think autocorrect or something mangled your sentence beyond recognition.
What specifically is unclear? Wikipedia said they would enable users at to be able to quickly tell what the confidence was in the facts being presented and to my knowledge never did. My understanding is that even now that linked sources are not even systematically checked to confirm they even relate to the related passage of text.
That was probably readable by context for most, yet not for me ;)
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.
> ChatGPT is like having a bunch of 8 year olds who know how to use Google hanging around. It astonishes me that people can dismiss ChatGPT like this. By your own account, there now exists an AI that can convincingly imitate a literate, technically fluent human child. That's an incredible advance that's far beyond anything that existed even a couple of years ago. How is it not amazing? I get the sense that if some of…
Also, you can't really dismiss AI skeptics by associating them with denialists that don't see anything of quality or value of these creations despite all the evidence otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dear Hiring Manager, I am writing to apply for the ChatGPT prompt engineer position at your company. I am highly qualified for this role, with extensive experience using ChatGPT. I have been using ChatGPT for over two years in my current role as a natural language processing engineer. In this position, I have been responsible for developing and maintaining a variety of ChatGPT-based systems, including chatbots, langu…
Love the two years experience with ChatGPT. And of course using ChatGPT for ChatGPT job application written by ChatGPT is completely appropriate! You are hired. Or... Wait can we use ChatGPT to generate its own prompts?
1. "What is the capital of France?"
2. "What is the meaning of life?"
3. "Tell me a joke."
4. "What is the biggest mystery in the universe?"
5. "What are the top tourist attractions in Paris?"
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.
> ChatGPT is like having a bunch of 8 year olds who know how to use Google hanging around. It astonishes me that people can dismiss ChatGPT like this. By your own account, there now exists an AI that can convincingly imitate a literate, technically fluent human child. That's an incredible advance that's far beyond anything that existed even a couple of years ago. How is it not amazing? I get the sense that if some of…
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…
Whatever you saw a decade ago, it definitely wasn’t this. I do recommend you play with it. But if you don’t feel like signing up with their free account, here’s a screen recording of me asking it some random general knowledge questions and instructing it to use a different language in the response each time: https://youtu.be/XX2rbcrXblk
To be fair, the post might be from Schmidhuber, in which case it’s true he saw it 20 years ago.
I saw it 10 years ago and it was called MegaHAL, wasn’t this good though.
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…