Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder • Hacker News Board

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#221

Post by treewalking » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #181

evrimfeyyaz wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This conversation is good evidence that ChatGPT does have a more or less average ability to reason. We’ve got humans making similar mistakes with 1 digit numbers.

(Or… are they human after all?)

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#222

Post by pulvinar » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #186

evrimfeyyaz wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spe…

After explaining to it the mistakes it made it seems to come around:

I think I made the mistakes in the first place because I wasn't paying close enough attention to the details of the question. I was not considering that I owed a token to my friend, and I was not thinking about the fact that seven tokens could be enough to buy a toy that costs seven tokens.

I’ve made mistakes like this too, where I get fixated on a particular pat solution, without considering the details of the new problem. In the AI case it’s probably memorized a bunch of solutions that override the details of this particular question.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#223

Post by dslowell » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 3:38 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...

Partly it's a matter of what to ask Chat GPT. When I try to show people, they usually ask straightforward questions that they can already get a quick answer from in Google, which isn't terrible impressive.

But take this, for example[1]. I asked it to write me a story in a particular genre featuring certain animals, and it did. I asked it to switch genres, which it did well. When I asked for a backstory about how different characters met, it provided a fairly plausible one, as well as songs that would accompany the story if it were a musical, and potential titles for a sequel.

When I asked it to write the beginning of a New York Times article titled "Biden Shocks Nation"[2] I got a fairly convincing news story about Biden deciding not to run for office again. If asked to continue the story and include people who might run, it generates further paragraphs talking about who might run to replace him, starting with Kamala Harris, who it claims is a strong contender.

Is any of this writing amazing? No, but very few writing is. It's amazing how well it's able to generate generic human writing, as well as how easy it is to get it to create what you want with very few prompts.

[1] https://twitter.com/LowellSolorzano/status/15997859363671941... [2] https://twitter.com/LowellSolorzano/status/15997883331018752...

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#224

Post by Jensson » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

darreninthenet wrote: post #203

nonameiguess wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would you make it navigate an api? We don't even know how to make it perform basic arithmetic's correctly, it is an enormous black box model so we can't just inject code into.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#225

Post by Ajedi32 » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 3:45 PM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #176

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 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.

Or automate the process even further; let the AI run the code, feed back the output (including errors), and ask "Does this output look correct? If not, please refine the code to fix any problems." Repeat until the AI says "LGTM".

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#226

Post by galangalalgol » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 3:46 PM UTC

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.

The driver won't zone out if it is only getting it correct a tiny fraction of the time.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#227

Post by eqmvii » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 3:48 PM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #176

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 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.

> 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.

This is definitely how we wind up with SkyNet...

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#228

Post by 10xDev » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 3:50 PM UTC

allturtles wrote: post #219

10xDev wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nei…

No, again we just discovered it only does well in constrained environments with well defined rules and a lot of data. Either that or something subjective that it can afford a lot of inaccuracy without looking totally stupid. It literally can't generalise to some basic logic problems just like AlphaZero is not going to be cooking your meals anytime soon.

If to you that's ok, fantastic. But to compare what we got so far to something intelligent rather than seeing it as more of a calculator then you are totally misrepresenting it.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#229

Post by abecedarius » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 3:56 PM UTC

FormerBandmate wrote: post #140

gumby wrote: post #53

Within the year I predict innumerable marketeers will type a sentence (“our blue baseball cap will help you get laid”), which is then expanded by some LLM into a full sales pitch, then compressed while being transmitted, then decompressed for display in a browser that automatically summarizes it into a single sentence (“advertiser wants you to buy hat”). Perhaps it will be ad block and reader mode that boil out the p…

The ad begins with a shot of a crowded party, with people laughing and having a good time. The camera then focuses on a group of friends standing together, with one of them wearing our blue baseball cap. The person wearing the cap is shown smiling and laughing, looking confident and happy as they interact with their friends. The camera zooms in on the cap, highlighting its blue color and the logo on the front. As the…

So, was that from an AI?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#230

Post by frobolo » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

ramraj07 wrote: post #72

WA wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is sold as an AI, people are unimpressed. It’s really not a genius. If it is sold as a sophisticated general purpose chat bot (like you did), it’s incredibly impressive. Context matters.

People collectively being unimpressed has never been and will continue to never be a yardstick. It’s good enough that no self respecting teacher would give an essay question as homework. It’s good enough to answer at least most factual questions you ask google. Turing would consider this to be an AI. Whether some jaded mediocre tech guru calls it an AI or not doesn’t matter that much in the big scheme of things.

If it kills homework then so much the better.