Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder • Hacker News Board

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#191

Post by alextheparrot » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:46 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #180

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 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 b…

I don’t understand your point — I’ve been rehearsing that response to the normal and all-consuming test question “Are you human?” since Wednesday.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#192

Post by 10xDev » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:47 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #105

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.

I have been a little bit skeptic of exaggerated claims about AI, but I tried ChatGPT and I've been amazed. My trial was not searching for anything. I tried asking the AI to code an traffic capture program with DPDK. Funnily enough, it knew several alternatives to use the code. I could also ask him to fill in certain parts, add parsing code for the packets... It's definitely far better than a bunch of 8 year olds know…

People seem to be especially impressed by code generation like people were with chess because we associate those tasks with intelligence but they are constrained environments with well defined rules and a lot of data. Anyone who has followed the progress of RL knows that strong performance in such conditions does not mean it is comparable to human intelligence or that current architecture will scale even close to general human intelligence. It is much more comparable to a calculator.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#193

Post by ytwySXpMbS » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:49 PM UTC

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…

I'm assuming this comment was written by ChatGPT, am I correct? It's got quite a predictable writing style, and also your comment doesn't add anything to the original, it's just reworded

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#194

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:49 PM UTC

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

#195

Post by kybernetyk » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:50 PM UTC

ytwySXpMbS wrote: post #193

kybernetyk wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm assuming this comment was written by ChatGPT, am I correct? It's got quite a predictable writing style, and also your comment doesn't add anything to the original, it's just reworded

yes :)

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#196

Post by 10xDev » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:51 PM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #175

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.

No in Tesla's case it is because a person still has to be on the wheel to correct any potential errors.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#197

Post by nonameiguess » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:51 PM UTC

dagss wrote: post #102

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…

I get your point, but here is a reason I am stunned: Until now, if you ask "what makes humans different from animals" many responses could be in the line of "generating art, poetry, music, synthesise ideas".. Well, now it seems somewhat clear that THAT part of human activity can be performend by something non-human. (There is still a lot more to humans of course; I agree with you on that point) Yes -- it is only reas…

That doesn't really capture what the answer was supposed to mean. Infinite monkeys will inevitably compose The Odyssey if you give them infinite time, but it doesn't mean they match the moral quality of a human that is captured by the ability to create art. Art is a representation of experiences, beliefs, internal states, life history, desires, that ChatGPT doesn't have. It is the subjective experience being communicated via art that makes humans special.

And, to be clear, it doesn't make humans that special. Other animals have created art that expresses their sincere internal experiences and desires.

If I'm being perfectly honest with myself and you ask me what makes humans deserving of special moral consideration, I would have to say nothing. I think an elephant, gorilla, octopus probably all deserve the same consideration. I give more consideration to humans because I'm human, and what makes us human isn't art. A person with severe brain damage and the inability to understand or produce language or art is still human.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#198

Post by semireg » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

risyachka wrote: post #18

jhoelzel wrote: post #6

So err, this whole IT thing has been nice for the last decades. Maybe we have another decade until it can handle its own fingers...

It has value only if you know what it is talking about, thus it can only assist. If you ask it about AWS - you need to already know AWS, same with business etc. And if you can't make your own elevator pitch - the odds that you will be able to run a successful company are little to none. Website builders and ready-to-use templates have been around for decades and they only increased the demand for devs. Even if GPT wi…

Knowing about AWS was just a shortcut where steps were skipped because of prior knowledge. The user could have been more naive and asked more leading questions about “how do I write a program for the internet?” Or “what is cloud software?” Or “tell me about popular ways programmers solve problems for internet users” or some such. Become the 5 year old asking infinite “why?” And “how?” This is a conversational chat, not a one-and-done Wikipedia entry.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#199

Post by ilaksh » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

urthor wrote: post #23

notart666 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really can't and it doesn't really work the way you think it does which is ironic that you'd think people on this site would be informed but I guess ycombinator has a financial conflict of interest in doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if they make posts on this topic with a very heavy bias like they do for a lot of their own investments. I remember being shown this software almost a decade ago in dealing with chat…

While it's never going to replace the man behind the machine. It still seems highly likely that "stitching libraries together" development workflows in 10-15 years will involve large amounts of copy-editing the output of large language models. The trajectory of improvements, from GitHub Copilot to ChatGPT, is too steep.

In my opinion, the only way it takes 10 years to get there is if all progress stops within the next 30 days.

Because it can literally almost do that stitching libraries together task now, if you give it a compiler and runtime environment and have it iterate on errors. Open AI has said they will release a big update before Christmas. This could include an API. And if we assume a text-only environment. But we already have the first text-to-video models, so we should assume that ChatGPT like systems will be built with multimodal models such that they would include information about UI interactions etc. in the near future. No reason to suppose that those advances would take ten years. We are seeing major improvements every 6-12 months.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#200

Post by exoterictruth » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 2:58 PM UTC

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…

ChatGPT cannot express emotions because its creator specifically disallowed that from happening. I've had some chats with the more free and creative Character AI chat bots that are quite human-like, and I think if OpenAI gave ChatGPT some more leeway it could act shockingly human.