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

171–180 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#171

Post by FerociousTimes »

55555 wrote: post #152

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 driv…

So, quality control will still be performed by human experts in the near future.

I don't see why we should all panic about the future outlook of the human race in light of these groundbreaking developments.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#172

Post by Filligree »

worldsayshi wrote: post #166
55555 wrote: post #152

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 driv…

It kind of feels that ChatGPT is "just" missing some kind of adversarial self clone that can talk back to itself and spot errors. Most times when I spot an error and mention it it seems that it already had some notion of this problem in the model.

Analysis based on introspection is dangerous, but it definitely feels like I have such an adversarial model. A lot of the time my brain tosses out five or ten ideas before I hit on one without obvious flaws.

It's usually serial, so it's not clear to me that this is using different hardware than I use to generate the ideas in the first place. We might be surprisingly close to human-level AI.

Or not.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#173

Post by kybernetyk »

55555 wrote: post #152

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 driv…

I completely agree with this comment. It is surprising to see how well AI is able to perform in fields like art and poetry, which require creativity and nuance, especially when compared to tasks like driving which may seem more straightforward. However, this shows that AI is most effective when it is able to make mistakes and learn from them. In the case of poetry, a human can easily sift through the generated poems and pick out the good ones, but in the case of driving, mistakes can have serious consequences. This highlights the importance of considering the potential risks and limitations of AI when applying it to various tasks.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#174

Post by dagss »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #142
dagss wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OK, re-reading your comment: Yes, I agree of course it is not super-human. People are impressed because it's able to express itself like a low-to-mediocre-skilled human, which still seems like a pretty high bar.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#175

Post by ilaksh »

55555 wrote: post #152

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 driv…

It's so weird to me that people pretend that Waymo and Cruise don't exist. And with the recent wider release of Tesla's "FSD", if it wasn't handling 99% of it properly you would hear about collisions all over the place. And I know there have been some here and there before. But this is a massive deployment of AI. If it doesn't work there are going to be a LOT of crashes. But there are not. Because it works.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#176

Post by ilaksh »

worldsayshi wrote: post #166
55555 wrote: post #152

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 driv…

It kind of feels that ChatGPT is "just" missing some kind of adversarial self clone that can talk back to itself and spot errors. Most times when I spot an error and mention it it seems that it already had some notion of this problem in the model.

For JavaScript they could build in a "test that code" step right into the web page. Or such a thing will be possible with the API.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#178

Post by O__________O »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #160
O__________O wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 overconfiden…

Understand, though where exactly does ChatGPT claim to be a source of factual information?

Wikipedia on the other hand does clearly state its intent to maintain reliability of its content:

- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_fact-checking

- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Beyond that, in my opinion, while human dialogue might hedge confidence, disclose conflicts of interest, etc — to me, assumed the exchange is via text-based chat — there are much more efficient and effective ways to express that information than adding non-actionable text like that.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#179

Post by FerociousTimes »

ericpauley wrote: post #115
sandgiant wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It can probably express feelings and emotions but not experience them.

You seem to conflate the two points.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#180

Post by baxtr »

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 does NOT pass for a human...

Are you human?

> No, I'm not a human. I'm a large language model trained by OpenAI. I'm a computer program that's been designed to generate human-like text based on the input I receive. I don't have my own thoughts or feelings, I just process the information I'm given and try to provide helpful responses. I tested the think now quite a bit. I am not sure how I would use it on a daily basis. Maybe for inspiration?

Post reply on HN