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

181–190 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#181

Post by bambax »

evrimfeyyaz wrote: post #165
bambax wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I think it's not getting that the friend who has two tokens is the same as the one you owe a token to. When you change the question to make it clearer, it responds correctly. "My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to the same friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it?"

But it doesn't matter. That's why I said 2 and 6 and not 2 and 5. If 2 and 5, the friend I owe the extra token to matters. If 2 and 6, even after I have honored my debt there are still enough tokens left to buy the toy.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#182

Post by skeeter2020 »

kybernetyk wrote: post #173
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…

Do you think this could actually be more of an indictment of how derivative and formulaic most "art" is? I don't think writing a poem requires any less perfection, just that we're more accepting of shitty poetry than we are terrible drivers.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#183

Post by skeeter2020 »

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...

It's just so much more mediocre content though; this is the last thing we need in a sea of interconnected beige. The value is just an AI-equivalent of experts-exchange.com

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#184

Post by FerociousTimes »

Karunamon wrote: post #162
FerociousTimes wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who on the entire internet has "marketed" these tools as what you're saying? I've seen some random people making bombastic claims about these models, infamously including a now fired Google engineer, but the people actually marketing them have been pretty sanguine about their features and limitations as far as I can tell. I'm reminded of that quote about Twitter: half of the outrage on the site is people imagining so…

Marketers here used metaphorically not literally.

People/bots hyping these tools is what I meant.

I wish people here would be more attuned to the context of comments before jumping to conclusions.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#185

Post by rustybolt »

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…

Half-agree. It's like having a very agreeable, inexperienced intern who googles everything.

BUT (s)he also works tireless, googles 100 pages a second and has infallible memory.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#186

Post by bambax »

evrimfeyyaz wrote: post #165
bambax wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I think it's not getting that the friend who has two tokens is the same as the one you owe a token to. When you change the question to make it clearer, it responds correctly. "My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to the same friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it?"

Also, it does not respond correctly in my experience.

Q My friend has 2 tokens and I have 6, but I owe one to the same 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.

The key sentence is still beyond absurd: "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."

(It may be possible that it simply wants to be consistent, and since it got it wrong once, it will stay with the same answer in the same session just because...?)

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#187

Post by nonameiguess »

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 humans, this is science. It's hard, time-consuming, often expensive and limited, involves ethics and consent, and gets a lot of wrong answers anyway.

So I guess we need to get to the point where you give an AI a prompt without a known answer, and instead of confidently spewing bullshit, it can propose a research study, get it funded, find subjects, and complete the study.

Of course, there are easy forms of "science." I just asked it "Is it cloudy in Dallas?" It answered:

It can be cloudy in Dallas. The city experiences both sunny and cloudy days throughout the year.

That is true, but not an answer. It is cloudy and I can conduct the very simple experiment of looking at the sky to get that answer.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#188

Post by ilaksh »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #164
apexalpha wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I asked it to write a simple Bash script to monitor a folder for certain files and then execute logic on them. It gave me a flawless Bash script purely from my description. If that isn't impressive I don't know what it.

Counter argument: if that script already exists as the first result for your question on stackoverflow, then it’s less impressive to think of it as an advanced search engine with improved natural language processing.

I did something similar with very specific logic, incrementally added. It is definitely combining information from somewhere but it is giving output that is very specific to the prompt.

Often subtly wrong or different from what you meant but you can clarify or ask it to fix something and it usually does.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#189

Post by seydor »

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 much of the modern economy is basic economic messaging "wrapped" in storytelling. The media is an enormous industry that (apart from news) is a few basic stories wrapped in elaborate ornamentation.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#190

Post by twelve40 »

jacobsimon wrote: post #60
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...

Totally, maybe we’re in the uncanny valley of AI intelligence and people are now over-reacting to small inaccuracies.

have we ever gotten out of uncanny valley for anything? like, did we finally learn to make non-cringeworthy human-looking robots? or do they still have this weird look they did 20+ years ago that you're able to tell in under a second
Post reply on HN