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

111–120 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#111

Post by pydry »

Jensson wrote: post #67
ben_w wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a reasonably intelligent person who is sometimes straight up wrong about random things, I feel I should get it to help me write a blog post to explain how I feel about it.

ChatGPT is wrong about basically everything though as long as you give it the right prompts. It has all the right answers but also all the wrong answers, that makes it much dumber than you who is reliably correct about some things at least.

>ChatGPT is wrong about basically everything though as long as you give it the right prompts.

So is my Uncle. This is very much a "human level intelligence" problem.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#112

Post by signa11 »

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…

''' 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 subject you know well it is sometimes laughable how wrong it is. '''

well, it is not a subject matter expert, and responses should not be taken as definitive. probably would be well worth to research and verify information from multiple sources etc. etc.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#113

Post by vincnetas »

vincnetas wrote: post #110
sgt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I went and asked GPT chat : "does the force of gravity depend on size of the object?"

"The force of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object. The size of the object does not affect the gravitational force. This means that two objects with different sizes but the same mass will experience the same gravitational force. For example, a small ball and a large ball made of the same material would experience the same gravitational force."

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#114

Post by bambax »

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…

"Plausible idiot" is a good way to describe it. It's so easy to trick. Here's an example:

Q My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to my friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it?

A No, your friend and you cannot afford to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. Even though your friend has two tokens and you have six tokens, you owe one token to your friend, so you only have five tokens available to spend. When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. In this case, your friend and you do not have enough money to buy the toy, even though you have a total of seven tokens when you combine your individual amounts. It is important to remember that when combining the amount of money two or more people have, you should add their individual amounts together, but also take into account any debts or obligations that need to be paid. In this case, your friend and you do not have enough money to buy the toy because you owe one token to your friend.

... "you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens"... ;-))) It doesn't seem to listen to what it's saying. Also, the patronizing paragraph it adds to most of its answers is quite ridiculous, given how clueless it is.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#115

Post by ericpauley »

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…

It’s relatively easy to convince ChatGPT to feel and express emotion.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#116

Post by bambax »

bambax wrote: post #114
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…

"Plausible idiot" is a good way to describe it. It's so easy to trick. Here's an example: Q My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to my friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it? A No, your friend and you cannot afford to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. Even though your friend has two tokens and you have six tokens, you owe one token to your friend, so you only…

And a follow up:

Q Do you consider the following statement to be logical: "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens."?

A Yes, I consider the statement "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens." to be logical. The statement is based on a clear set of premises and uses valid reasoning to reach a conclusion. The premises of the statement are that your friend has two tokens, you have five tokens, and the toy costs 7 tokens. The conclusion is that when you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy. This conclusion is reached through the process of adding the number of tokens your friend has with the number of tokens you have, which results in a total of 7 tokens. Since the toy costs 7 tokens, this means that you do not have enough money to buy the toy. This is a logical conclusion based on the information provided in the statement.

Endless fun with the village idiot. It kind of makes me feel bad.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#117

Post by thinkingemote »

feintruled wrote: post #52

A little frightening really. I do love the fact that it produces a whole load of really rather plausible technical and sales pitch content, then when it comes to the AI generated logo and name it's called stuff like 'Cloaud ShiVore'. Makes it like a joke with a fantastic punchline.

The images (with the odd name) are created using Midjourney and not ChatGPT, btw.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#118

Post by simonebrunozzi »

kristiandupont wrote: post #44
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…

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 partially agree with you.

I agree that dismissing ChatGPT is a mistake; and if you know anything about AI, you know that ChatGPT is a technological leap (not alone; part of a small category, including stuff like Stable Diffusion, etc).

But also I would make the distinction between imitation and generation. ChatGPT is great at using existing inputs, found on the Internet, to sound plausible; and I'm sure it will get better at it in just mere months.

However, the ability to provide true advice, or in other words, to "generate" ideas and content and suggestions, is a whole different story. And on this front, I am not sure that we are where the cool Tim Urban vignette tries to convey.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#119

Post by SilkRoadie »

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.

What is mind blowing for me is the ability for ChatGPT with limited context to generate content. "Write me a letter informing X about issue Y" will draft 3 paragraphs which typically articulates the problem very well. Asking it to make the response more or less formal or to focus on a specific point will instantly rewrite it as requested.

I haven't delved too deeply but it is pretty good with code generation as well. "Write me a docker image that does X". "Let's use B instead of C." "I also require Z." It does a really solid job.

With the OP's article. It is very impressive how it generates ideas and then is able to drill down and expand on them as more detailed questions are asked. Perhaps something already can do this.. it is first time I have seen it. My experience so far is that ChatGPT is generations ahead of current assistants. For a number of tasks it is faster and more useful than Google.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#120

Post by nateburke »

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…

>> It is impressive. But not trustworthy.

Post should be titled "Using ChatGPT as a post-A-round, board-hired COO."

Post reply on HN