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

201–210 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#201

Post by ilaksh »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #55
ben_w wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, that pattern of hype’s already been doing the rounds since GPT-3 first came out — people imagining GPT-4 and GPT-5 for short sci-fi stories about the late 2020s and early 2030s, asking a question that dates at least as far back as a few centuries BC with Jewish folklore about humans creating golems: can the work of our human hands and minds ever itself be a person? I’ve been playing with it. It’s very impressive,…

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…

Try https://character.ai. Has not been optimized for accuracy/dryness since it's for entertainment.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#202

Post by superhuzza »

nonameiguess wrote: post #197
dagss wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 communic…

A piece of AI generated art recently scored top prize in a digital painting competition. It's starting to look more like one monkey, on a limited time frame, making art that people rated highly.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#203

Post by darreninthenet »

nonameiguess wrote: post #187
worldsayshi wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "scien…

However is this not a known limitation with how it's currently setup? It has no way of knowing what the current weather in Dallas is simply because it has no way of finding out (eg it could query a weather website, but it has no internet browsing yet)... to be an accurate comparison you'd need to repeat your simple experiment blindfolded.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#204

Post by ilaksh »

ArunRaja wrote: post #106

Chatgpt 3 : Benefits : * Answers synthesis of first 10 links of "google search". * Creates skeleton code * Write technical and artistic content * Create gist of large text and highlight important parts. Drawbacks : * No means to verify when things go wrong.

What I have been doing is running the code. If there is an error then I paste it in and tell it to fix it.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#205

Post by sarchertech »

urthor wrote: post #43
ben_w wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also impossible to imagine correctly. Back in 2009, I was completely convinced that we’d be able to go into a car dealership and buy a brand new vehicle which had no steering wheel because the self-driving AI was just that good, within 10 years. Seemed reasonable at the time on the basis of the DARPA Grand Challenge results, but even 13 years later, it didn’t happen.

Yes, exactly. There's also mathematically excellent reasons why that happened. Self-driving cars are an impossibly complex problem. Statistics are statistics. Predicting the minority class correctly 99% of the time isn't good enough for autonomous driving. A car has to break for little Suzie 100% of the time. However, generating 1,000 lines of code for a CRUD app? That's 99% bug free? That's a helluva lot better than…

The equivalent is closer to a CRUD app that serves 99% of requests correctly. Which is nowhere near good enough to use.

But even if we do go with 99% bug free for the sake of argument, the usefulness depends on the type of bug. How harmful is it? How easy is it to detect?

I had my wife (a physician) ask ChatGPT medical questions and it was almost always subtly but dangerously and confidently wrong. It looked fine to me but it took an expert to spot the flaws. And frequently it required specialist knowledge that a physician outside of my wife’s specialty wouldn’t even know to find the problems.

If you need a senior engineer to read and understand every line of code this thing spits out I don’t see it as providing more than advanced autocomplete in real world use (which to be fair could be quite helpful).

It frequently takes more time to read and really comprehend a junior engineers PR than it would have to just do it myself. The only reason I’m not is mentoring.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#206

Post by MrScruff »

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…

Exactly. Human creative works are also on a bell curve, with the stuff in the middle typically being bland and boring. It's only when risks are taking that it holds our interest.

ChatGPT mirrors this, producing output that feels generic precisely because it's trying to predict what's the most likely response. That's in direct opposition to interesting creative works.

You can force it off the beaten track a little by adding more details to your prompt, but it will still try and fit the best curve through those additional points.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#207

Post by netheril96 »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #171
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.

The number of workers needed for quality control is much lower than the number for actual work. It is not unreasonable to fear the loss of jobs to AI.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#208

Post by baxtr »

alextheparrot wrote: post #191
baxtr wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you human?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#209

Post by ilaksh »

10xDev wrote: post #196
ilaksh wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You think if it was failing any significant amount to drive in a safe way, with this wide deployment, there wouldn't be a lot of crashes? Having an AI drive is the best way to make the driver zone out. At this point, it usually fails by going into intersections a little too slowly.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#210

Post by topaz0 »

vincnetas wrote: post #158
treis wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Now do the tidal forces
Post reply on HN