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

211–220 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#211

Post by Dave3of5 »

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 agree, plus it seems to be data from a fixed point in time to it can't comment on anything up to date. So if a new theory came out tomorrow it wouldn't have any way to be updated to add that to it's knowledge.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#212

Post by iamflimflam1 »

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

Interesting, I wonder if people will modify how they write to avoid appearing as an AI.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#213

Post by luma »

arcturus17 wrote: post #144
luma wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like people are expecting a computer program to produce perfect, error-free output at all times. Then, when a program is developed which presents itself like a human, we apply the same ideas that all output should be perfect. We do not apply those same rules to people, we acknowledge that people provide imperfect answers and are used to fact checking them. Maybe we just need to adjust our mental models when wo…

If I ask a seasoned CTO about the tech stack and architecture for my startup I don’t expect perfect information, but I do expect a trustworthy opinion.

Right, but how do you know you're asking a seasoned CTO? We all deal with this in real life, when working with somebody new you might not fully trust that person until you've had an opportunity to gauge their skills.

Same deal here, this isn't a perfect system and it doesn't produce perfect output all of the time. So, work with the system and get a sense of how much you can trust it, just like you would with normal human interactions.

OpenAI is not positioning this as a CTO-level intelligence. If you came into it with that understanding, that isn't OpenAI's fault.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#214

Post by scott_w »

ilaksh wrote: post #209
10xDev wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's entire YouTube channels dedicated to videos of Tesla Self Driving doing stupid things like trying to turn into a tram. At scale, 99.99% correct will still kill many thousands of people. Compared to the sheer volume of cars, there aren't actually that many Teslas out there.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#215

Post by SergeAx »

I briefly skimmed content of the article, and had an impression that most of the data generated by different ML models for it is laying in the segment from infonoise to garbage. Does author understands that and publishing his findings anyway, or they are truely content with that level of quality, since it's free?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#216

Post by mathattack »

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…

Yes. Another option way I view it is that AI is good where humans make a lot of mistakes too.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#217

Post by Dave3of5 »

I used many combinations and I was impressed that even with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors it got the point of the questions I asked. It's "knowledge" was only surface level which I could have easily just searched Wikipedia to get.

I thought it's code refactoring ability was on par with the static analysis tools out there at the moment.

In terms of an actual conversation it was woefully inadequate. The feeling I got was like using a chatbot on a website for a bank vs actually phoning and speaking to a person. It was like just canned responses it was giving me all the time rather than any real interaction.

Also note that even on the website it says it gets stuff incredibly wrong every now and then. I didn't see this but I could imagine not wanting to use something like this on your banks website for that exact reason e.g. legal liability.

I do applaud the creators giving even the smallest of thoughts to ethics here in that you can't ask it how to make a bomb and suchlike otherwise it'll tell you nope.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#218

Post by Ajedi32 »

mach1ne wrote: post #14
pmontra wrote: post #7

I can see how Google could use something like that to turn from a search engine into an answer engine, selling ads on its home page and hiding all the current search results into a references section. If they won't do it, someone else will and kill Google outright.

Oh, but there is a world of difference between answering questions based on neural memory and being able to bind these answers to actual references and sources. That being said, something like what you described will likely happen.

At this point I feel like it's only a matter of time before a future version of this is able to cite sources. (Though I suspect it'll occasionally struggle to find sources that are reputable and which actually support the AI's statements.)

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#219

Post by allturtles »

10xDev wrote: post #192
gjulianm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gen…

You are making what I think of as the standard "game move" of the AI skeptic. Chess-playing skill was considered a marker of intelligence, but then AI solved it, so it turns out it doesn't require "real" intelligence. 15 years later, neither does playing Jeopardy, it's "just" a clever Google search, that's not really intelligence. Now according to you, programming doesn't require real intelligence (and apparently neither does poetry writing, or essay writing, or any of the other things GPT can do).

In a few years, perhaps we will discover that medicine, law, the social sciences, accounting, financial advice, and white collar work generally speaking don't require intelligence either, and the only things left that will require "real" intelligence will be the building trades and maybe truck driving.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#220

Post by cmeacham98 »

O__________O wrote: post #178
FerociousTimes wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, as…

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

It doesn't right now, but if you scroll up, you'll see the idea at the beginning of this thread is to turn it into a source of information.

The difference between ChatGPT and Wikipedia for this purpose is that:

1. Wikipedia is wrong wayyyyyyyy less often than ChatGPT

2. Wikipedia has sources linked at the bottom of the page you can go check, while ChatGPT does not

Post reply on HN