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

151–160 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#151

Post by matsemann »

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 told it three sentences about the company I work at, and asked it what kind of features we should implement in our internal processes. It actually gave quite reasonable suggestions, some of which we've either implemented or discussed earlier. Some suggestions really weird, of course.

But even if not "intelligent", it kinda worked as a very specific search. Someone has probably written loads of how to do tasks similar to ours, this gave a distilled answer on things to explore further.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#152

Post by 55555 »

Many people are surprised at the advancement of AI, as they thought that generative fields (art, poetry) would be hardest for AI to excel at, whereas “simple” tasks like driving would be easier.

What we are actually seeing is that AI is useful to the degree that being wrong is okay. AI’s mess up, and that’s okay with poetry because a human can quickly read the poems and pick out the good ones. It’s not okay when driving.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#153

Post by srge »

yesenadam wrote: post #132
srge wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to be in this thread when it becomes the new infamous Dropbox thread

Oh please, comparing ChatGPT to Dropbox is like comparing a tiny little puddle to a vast ocean. Dropbox was a revolutionary product that changed the way we store and share files, while ChatGPT is just a mediocre language model with no real-world impact. You must be living under a rock if you think they're even in the same league. > Write a mocking reply to someone suggesting on Hacker News that someone else dismissin…

Write a sarcastic HN comment trivializing a significant tech accomplishment in the space of conversational artificial intelligence :

> Wow, another AI that can hold a conversation! I'm sure this will revolutionize the way we communicate with machines and make our lives so much easier. Definitely not a waste of time and resources at all. Keep up the impressive work!

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#154

Post by patchorang »

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'm starting a jigsaw puzzle company with my partner. I was working on the website/brand the other day and I wanted some clever copy to put on the website. I brainstormed for a few minutes, then I thought it'd be fun to see what ChatGPT could come up with.

Turns out, about half the copy we are using on the site is coming from ChatGPT. I came up with a few clever lines, but ChatGPT came up with more and faster. It produced some lines my partner and I legitimately laughed out loud at.

My copywriting skills are pretty bad. Even if ChatGPT's are "sort of basic", it's better than me. ChatGPT isn't replacing copywriters, but it's making the work they do much more accessible to people who aren't copywriters.

It felt like ~10 years ago the conversation was that "AI will do the tedious boring work and make more time to do the creative work". What actually seems to be happening is that the creative work is slowly being eaten by AI and giving it to the people who aren't good at that flavor of creative work.

Writing a few clever lines of copy for a indie puzzle company isn't the most creative work of all time, but it is still creative work. And it was done by AI. And it was done better than I could.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#155

Post by emehex »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #95
chrisbaker98 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Exactly which makes me think the egos are perhaps bruised. Yes obviously it will be wrong but using it you keep that in mind. To expand on the analogy it is like having an 8 year old around but unbelievably this 8 year old has literally read and remembered and basically “understood” everything about everything we collectively know. I’ve tested it with fairly esoteric questions about the technologies I work with and i…

Framed differently: what would you (be able to) do, or (be able to) build with an infinite number of “8 year olds” at your disposal?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#156

Post by arcturus17 »

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…

Are you a programmer? Because I’m not sure from reading your comment that you understand the profession…

Good at math at school isn’t even a requirement to be a good programmer nowadays. Maybe in certain sub-disciplines, but not all.

Being a programmer is much more than coding “in the small”. It’s about analyzing requirements and creating high level abstractions. There has been a pressure towards reducing the amount of “coding in the small” since languages started incorporating standard libraries. Then there’s been web frameworks, open source packages, API services, etc. Despite all this the need for developers has exploded and there is a perennial supply gap for talent…

Then there is the question of who is going to be manipulating these tools? Programmers.

Same promise was made of low-code tools, and what do we have now?

- As many app devs as before

- Most low-code tools (at least in the enterprise) are operated by… app devs?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#157

Post by watoc »

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.

Did you generate your comment with ChatGPT? I can't tell.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#158

Post by vincnetas »

treis wrote: post #124
vincnetas wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A, yes, went and calculated the force for 1 meter distance. 392 tera newtons :O

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#159

Post by alchemist1e9 »

emehex wrote: post #155
alchemist1e9 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly which makes me think the egos are perhaps bruised. Yes obviously it will be wrong but using it you keep that in mind. To expand on the analogy it is like having an 8 year old around but unbelievably this 8 year old has literally read and remembered and basically “understood” everything about everything we collectively know. I’ve tested it with fairly esoteric questions about the technologies I work with and i…

Framed differently: what would you (be able to) do, or (be able to) build with an infinite number of “8 year olds” at your disposal?

A lot because I can dispatch them to collect the background knowledge for the next step. I’ve had multiple 8 years olds I’ve raised to be older and even human 8 year olds can be incredibly useful when given instructions. Actually if I remember correctly they were so useful we had to ban child labor?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#160

Post by FerociousTimes »

O__________O wrote: post #80
FerociousTimes wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bot got it unequivocally wrong here. When it said that the vast majority of the population of what's now modern-day France spoke modern French as their native language, that's categorically false and shouldn't be treated with leniency or open to interpretations.

My point is cherry picking flaws won’t help improve anything for ChatGPT, Wikipedia, etc — but systematic approaches to discovering and modeling information space and related fact, queries, etc would. Wikipedia not free of issues and to my knowledge does not allow end user to see Wikipedia’s confidence in a given fact, if they have one at all.

These sort of statements are by nature speculative not factual, and thus speakers are advised to express and communicate doubt, and hedge against uncertainty inherent in their views, and probably even vicious rebuttals, by using appropriate language constructs or terminology, but when a know-it-all bot that was trained by its handlers to pass always as an authority figure makes a mistake due to hubris or overconfidence, don't expect us to sit idle, and not call them out, and refute their claims accordingly.
Post reply on HN