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

141–150 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#141

Post by luma »

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 feel like people are expecting a computer program to produce perfect, error-free output at all times. Then, when a program is developed which presents itself like a human, we apply the same ideas that all output should be perfect.

We do not apply those same rules to people, we acknowledge that people provide imperfect answers and are used to fact checking them.

Maybe we just need to adjust our mental models when working with technology that works a little like a human? Forget implicit trust, verify important details, etc etc. Presume the "AI" works like a human and the workflow makes more sense.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#142

Post by FerociousTimes »

dagss wrote: post #108
FerociousTimes wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1- The talking point expressing an anti-consumerist sentiment for the Christmas holidays is cliched and boring.

2- This is actually offensive not because of the nature of the lyrics, but for its association with Eminem.

I'm not an Eminem stan myself, but it can do him like this. The guy is way way out of its league

This is an amateur-level lyricism for rap songs and even me not remotely an amateur lyricist, I can do better than this garbage:

"We overspend and consume, just to show [that] we care. But is all that material stuff [I assume], really worth the wear and tear?"

3- Children-book writing level.

I mean it's very impressive given it's produced by a bot, but not a cause of immediate concern for well-established figures in the fiction writing world especially with this bland and sterile voice/tone in its storytelling.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#143

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#144

Post by arcturus17 »

luma wrote: post #141
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 feel like people are expecting a computer program to produce perfect, error-free output at all times. Then, when a program is developed which presents itself like a human, we apply the same ideas that all output should be perfect. We do not apply those same rules to people, we acknowledge that people provide imperfect answers and are used to fact checking them. Maybe we just need to adjust our mental models when wo…

If I ask a seasoned CTO about the tech stack and architecture for my startup I don’t expect perfect information, but I do expect a trustworthy opinion.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#145

Post by FerociousTimes »

luma wrote: post #141
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 feel like people are expecting a computer program to produce perfect, error-free output at all times. Then, when a program is developed which presents itself like a human, we apply the same ideas that all output should be perfect. We do not apply those same rules to people, we acknowledge that people provide imperfect answers and are used to fact checking them. Maybe we just need to adjust our mental models when wo…

When marketers of these tools make them sound like next-level in universal intelligence surpassing even humans, and they under-deliver consistently, don't blame the audience or the public for the tool's shortcomings, but the misleading marketing campaigns instead.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#146

Post by arcturus17 »

kalium-xyz wrote: post #128
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...

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

What kind of tests did you feed it specifically? I’m curious to experiment with this too.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#147

Post by altcognito »

rightbyte wrote: post #126
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.

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 wa…

I know we don't do this here, but what a great point.

Additionally, it is hard to put my finger on a good explanation, but FSD is a very specific problem that we're trying to handcraft an AI solution for.

You have to appreciate how broad this model is and how decent the results it produces are without being told specifically how to do it.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#148

Post by omnicognate »

M4v3R wrote: post #63
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.

So you're telling me that it's not mind-blowing, that we basically created artificial intelligence capable of solving general tasks at a level of a 8 year old human being? Because to me that is still pretty mind-blowing. And I'd argue it's probably at a level above that (but not much). When in your opinion it will finally be mind blowing? When it matches intelligence and skill of a 14 year old? 20 year old? 40?

GPT is not at the level of an 8 year old human being and isn't even doing remotely the same thing as an 8 year old human being.

GPT is mindblowing. It's a mindblowingly good predictive language model. It's an insanely, holy-fuck-I-never-thought-that-would-be-possible, amazingly good predictive language model. I'm thoroughly impressed. I just think it's not AGI, it's not close to AGI, it's not any kind of threat to jobs in programming (though maybe it could be in some fields) and it isn't likely to be any of these things any time soon.

The claims that it is all these things (which you can see all over these threads) are what people are arguing against.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#149

Post by okennedy »

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...

There's a crucial distinction between being impressive and being useful. Is it impressive that we've gotten to this point? Certainly! Is this a tool that people can safely rely on? Probably not.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#150

Post by geysersam »

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...

What is the indication AI will develop exponentially like that?

It's just an hypothesis, not founded on anything concrete.

There might not be any path from GPR-3 to GAI, even GAI on ant or bird level.

A smart AI might not be smart enough to improve itself significantly.

Post reply on HN