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

101–110 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#101

Post by MrScruff »

WA wrote: post #57
kristiandupont wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If it is sold as an AI, people are unimpressed. It’s really not a genius. If it is sold as a sophisticated general purpose chat bot (like you did), it’s incredibly impressive. Context matters.

I think the reason people are impressed is it's assumed the accuracy will improve quickly over time as architectures improve and the models increase in size, just as it did in other areas of machine learning like image classification.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#102

Post by dagss »

sandgiant wrote: post #79
kristiandupont wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's even more astonishing (depressing?) to me how little credit people give humans these days. If the consensus is that ChatGPT pretty much passes for a human, my definition of a human is very different from that of the consensus. At the very least I'd like my humans to exhibit even minimal capacity for emotional expression as well as consistency and honesty. I can't even believe I'm even spelling this out. What is…

I get your point, but here is a reason I am stunned:

Until now, if you ask "what makes humans different from animals" many responses could be in the line of "generating art, poetry, music, synthesise ideas"..

Well, now it seems somewhat clear that THAT part of human activity can be performend by something non-human.

(There is still a lot more to humans of course; I agree with you on that point)

Yes -- it is only reassembling stuff humans in the past have done -- but so is most of human activities in these areas. Very little humans produce is not inspired by input from others. Art, music and ideas reverberate back and forth between humans and only slowly change over the decades.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#103

Post by EGreg »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #77
altcognito wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well as someone who kinda bought into the hype that we would have self driving cars 3 years ago, I’d say beware of underestimating the importance of the size of the problem. However, I agree with you in general: there’s a certain amount of surprise in laughing off the creation an AI agent that could pass as a reasonably intelligent person if it just weren’t straight up wrong about random things.

These are not random things. When the creators of this tool present it as the frontier of machine intelligence, and when its persona revolves around being intelligent, authoritative, and knowledgeable, and yet it gets some basic, not random, stuff awfully wrong, you can't really discount the skeptic sentiments expressed in the comments here like this.

Skeptic about what

You’re assuming that this will only be used when it’s perfect and in helpful ways

This will be used at scale THIS YEAR and every subsequent year to infiltrate social networks including this one and amass points / karma / followers / clout. And also to write articles that will eventually dwarf all human-generated content.

With this and deepfakes and image/video generation, the age of trusting or caring about internet content or your friends sharing online is coming to an end. But it will be a painful 10 years as online mobs and outrage will happen over and over since people think they’re reacting to their friends’ posts of real things.

No, forget violent killbots. Today’s tech puts the nail in the coffin of human societal organization and systems of decision making and politics over the next 10 years. And AI doesn’t have to be right about stuff to destroy our systems.

We’ve been analyzing the performance of ONE agent among say 9 humans at a poker table. But imagine untold swarms of them, being owned by competing groups, infiltrating ALL human content exchange.

Not much different than what happened in trading firms over the last 20 years. Bots will be WELCOMED because they perform better on many metrics but will F everyone on the others.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#104

Post by pydry »

indigochill wrote: post #82
kristiandupont wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I like GPT-3 a lot, but there's an important distinction between "plausible conversation" and "trustworthy answers". ChatGPT is probably best in the world in the "plausible conversation" category. 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 C…

>you could say part of the problem is ChatGPT literally "believes" everything it reads online

This is very much a problem with humans too.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#105

Post by gjulianm »

gsatic wrote: post #33

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 have been a little bit skeptic of exaggerated claims about AI, but I tried ChatGPT and I've been amazed. My trial was not searching for anything. I tried asking the AI to code an traffic capture program with DPDK. Funnily enough, it knew several alternatives to use the code. I could also ask him to fill in certain parts, add parsing code for the packets... It's definitely far better than a bunch of 8 year olds knowing how to use Google.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#106

Post by ArunRaja »

Chatgpt 3 :

Benefits :

* Answers synthesis of first 10 links of "google search".

* Creates skeleton code

* Write technical and artistic content

* Create gist of large text and highlight important parts.

Drawbacks :

* No means to verify when things go wrong.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#107

Post by chimprich »

How come the technical details of ChatGPT are (apparently) a secret?

I tried asking the model about its architecture and it told me that the details were proprietary.

Assuming the model was correct in its understanding, isn't this counter to what OpenAI are trying to do?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#108

Post by dagss »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #55
ben_w wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, that pattern of hype’s already been doing the rounds since GPT-3 first came out — people imagining GPT-4 and GPT-5 for short sci-fi stories about the late 2020s and early 2030s, asking a question that dates at least as far back as a few centuries BC with Jewish folklore about humans creating golems: can the work of our human hands and minds ever itself be a person? I’ve been playing with it. It’s very impressive,…

Its writing style is also trite, dry, verbose and tedious not to mention, the penchant for run-on sentences and blocks/walls of text. I know that it's been tailored to output like this by its own creators to suit this medium of communication with the public, and it can likely to be tweaked to be less uptight and more laid-back in its verbal communications style, if necessary but I am not quite sold exactly on its pot…

About the uninspired text that's definitely tailoring.

I asked for "arguments against christmas gifts" and got a lot of "correct" but bland text:

"Another argument against Christmas gifts is that the commercialization of the holiday can lead to excessive consumerism and waste. [...]"

Then I asked "Same arguments, but in the style of an Eminem rap" and got a lot of this stuff:

"The commercialization of the holiday, it's a damn shame All the pressure to buy gifts, it's a damn game We overspend and consume, just to show we care But is all that material stuff, really worth the wear and tear?"

Then I asked it to tell an adventure story and got:

"The two of them decided to scale back on their gift-giving plans, and instead focus on making the holiday special in other ways. They went for long walks in the woods, enjoying the beauty of the winter landscape. They cooked delicious meals together and shared them with their neighbors. And on Christmas Eve, they gathered around the fire and sang carols, feeling grateful for the love and connection they shared."

The technology is obviously able to work in lots of style and re-interpret the same messages between them etc.

Today, these concrete avenues have been blocked it seems (especially asking for song lyrics is blocked today). But I can still produce lyrics by asking "what would a friend have said if I asked them to ... ", providing an "escape hatch" for the blocking.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#109

Post by ben_w »

astrange wrote: post #89
ben_w wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Whatever you saw a decade ago, it definitely wasn’t this. 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 had to look up MegaHal, apparently that was based at least in part on a hidden Markov Model.

Using "it" in this way to refer to both that and GPT-family LLMs, or similarly saying "I remember being shown this software almost a decade ago" like the other commenter, is like saying "I remember seeing Kitty Hawk fly, and there's no way that can get someone across the Atlantic" when being presented with a chance to a free seat on the first flight of the Concord. (Actual human level intelligence in this analogy is a spaceship we still have not built, that's not where I'm going with this).

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#110

Post by vincnetas »

sgt wrote: post #56
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…

I've been asking it some popular science / physics related questions, like: "If the moon was compressed into the size of a soccer ball, would it be dangerous to be close to it ?" Its answer: "If the moon were compressed into the size of a soccer ball, it would be extremely dangerous to be close to it. The moon is made up of rock and other materials, and if it were compressed into a much smaller size, the resulting de…

But is this true though? Force of gravity does not depend on size of the object. It only depends on mass of two interacting objects. So no mater how you compress the the moon it's mass will still be the same, hence force of gravity will also stay the same? no?
Post reply on HN