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

121–130 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#121

Post by 10xDev »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #92
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…

If the post-truth era has taught us anything, it's that humans aren't all that good at this either. It's probably a consequence of how logic works - to be reliable, you need a narrow field, the more open-ended the application the more likely it is to need to guess.

chatGPT spits out the first thing to be generated with no self-awareness that it could be wrong let alone have self-reflection to correct itself. Maybe it seems people can be that way but this is generally not how humans function.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#122

Post by indigochill »

pydry wrote: post #104
indigochill wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To some extent, but people also have convictions about certain things, which GPT-based chatbots don't. The world would be very different if we could "fix" racists simply by asking them their favorite thing about people from other races (implying that there are admirable qualities, which GPT-3 plays along with but humans don't).

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#123

Post by 0thgen »

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 confuses us in ways" could be framed: "it makes us rethink and expand our definition of intelligence and human cognition in very interesting ways".

Even if it's far from "true human" level (whatever that means), it gives us a theory about ourselves that's computationally falsifiable.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#124

Post by treis »

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?

You can get much closer to the center of a soccer ball than you can a moon. And since gravity falls off with the square of distance it's a very significant difference.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#125

Post by glenneroo »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #32
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 wa…

I just wrote this comment in copilot (rider/c#):

// convert 32 to binary

copilot suggestion: 00000000000000000000000000100000

Then I tried:

int val = 32; // convert 32 to binary

Auto-generated:

binary = Convert.ToString(val, 2);

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#126

Post by rightbyte »

altcognito wrote: post #46
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...

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.

FSD is different. The last 0.01% kills children.

The last x% to make this bot a full fledged programmer does not matter. The clients will accept bugs that would be fatal in FSD. We will lose our jobs at an astonnishing rate in some kinds of companies in the coming years. I guess agile sweatshops will be first but I have no clue how far it will go.

Even if you happen to be safe there will be a downwards pressure on wages. Algorithm cranking might be largely obsolete and our main focus might be skeleton writing. It removes a big obstacle for becoming a programmer. The "good at math in school" requirement.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#127

Post by ehutch79 »

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...

Because it's been hyped as genius? That will replace all our jr coders?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#128

Post by kalium-xyz »

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...

Ive subjected the thing to a professionally used IQ test and technically it scored very high on what I could test it at, however one way it lost points was claiming milk was transparent

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#129

Post by hnbad »

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 a confident idiot. That's good enough for many purposes and a great jumping off point if you can bridge its knowledge gap.

I see its output as similar to that of most of the art AI tools: it doesn't beat what a skilled professional would deliver but it's cheap and provides a credible-looking solution that you can workshop to produce something usable.

It's not competing with hiring an experienced developer or writer, but with hiring a "cheap expert team in {{THIRD_WORLD_COUNTRY}}", an intern or a random guy on Fiverr. It's more of an assistant than an architect.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#130

Post by esposm03 »

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?

Force of gravity does depend on distance between the two objects though
Post reply on HN