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

231–240 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#231

Post by frobolo »

MrScruff wrote: post #101
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.

I think the reason people are impressed is it's assumed the accuracy will improve quickly over time as architectures improve and the models increase in size, just as it did in other areas of machine learning like image classification.

Precisely. As Károly is so often reminding us, wait until two more papers down the line.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#232

Post by bambax »

treewalking wrote: post #221
bambax wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

I've never had anyone say to me that 7 Sometimes you can indeed trick some people with an obfuscated reasoning that has a cleverly hidden division by zero, but when they arrive at the conclusion that x < x, or x != x, they stop and accept that they got it wrong somewhere somehow. They don't insist that they're right and that the statement is perfectly reasonable and logical.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#233

Post by worldsayshi »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #225
ilaksh wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

"Please provide code that successfully hacks into FBI headquarters."

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#234

Post by lolinder »

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.

> Most times when I spot an error and mention it it seems that it already had some notion of this problem in the model.

By this do you mean that it correctly incorporated what you said and convincingly indicated that it understood the mistake? Because that's not the same thing as it having the truth latently encoded in the model—it just means that it knows how people respond when someone corrects them (which is usually to say "oh, yeah, that's what I meant").

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#235

Post by gjulianm »

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…

I'm not claiming "general human intelligence". Just that to me it's impressive that it's able to generate code for a niche library (not too many code samples out there for DPDK), correct it according to instructions, add more code as needed... From what I've seen, it's even capable of detecting bugs. That, to me, is impressive. And I don't think programming is as much a constrained environment as chess is.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#236

Post by oliwary »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #225
ilaksh wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Or let us provide unit tests for generated code and automatically tell the AI to fix the code until the code passes the tests we provided.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#237

Post by 10xDev »

gjulianm wrote: post #235
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…

I'm not claiming "general human intelligence". Just that to me it's impressive that it's able to generate code for a niche library (not too many code samples out there for DPDK), correct it according to instructions, add more code as needed... From what I've seen, it's even capable of detecting bugs. That, to me, is impressive. And I don't think programming is as much a constrained environment as chess is.

It is not as constrained but still fairly constrained and with a lot of data. And I was referring to the comparison to children with a search engine.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#238

Post by Karunamon »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #184
Karunamon wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wish people here would choose their words more carefully.

Your context was not clear at all, since random commenters on the internet are not responsible for the performance or the delivery or the marketing of these models at all, and you use the word "marketing campaign", which is only ever something that people directly connected to the product in some way are responsible for. Comments by unrelated members of the general public, very few of which have any kind of domain knowledge, are not marketing campaigns for crying out loud!

On top of that, this was the most charitable possible reading of your comment. Now that you reveal you actually meant "when random people make them sound like the next level in universal intelligence…", this is both an incredibly weak point (expecting the general public to understand something deeply is usually unreasonable) and makes you sound overly credulous. Why are you taking your cues on a brand-new technology from uninformed, likely tech-illiterate randoms?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#239

Post by allturtles »

dagss wrote: post #174
FerociousTimes wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1- The talking point expressing an anti-consumerist sentiment for the Christmas holidays is cliched and boring. 2- This is actually offensive not because of the nature of the lyrics, but for its association with Eminem. I'm not an Eminem stan myself, but it can do him like this. The guy is way way out of its league This is an amateur-level lyricism for rap songs and even me not remotely an amateur lyricist, I can do…

OK, re-reading your comment: Yes, I agree of course it is not super-human. People are impressed because it's able to express itself like a low-to-mediocre-skilled human, which still seems like a pretty high bar.

I agree. I see a lot of ratcheting expectations in this thread, in response to some truly amazing and frankly frightening capabilities. Those rap lyrics IMO are at least as good as many, many lyrics in actual successful songs by real humans. Most song lyrics aren't very clever.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#240

Post by trynewideas »

ericpauley wrote: post #115
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’s relatively easy to convince ChatGPT to feel and express emotion.

It's relatively easy to write a prompt that ChatGPT can respond to with something it thinks you want to hear, based on what it's read others write in similar contexts — that's mostly what all these "wow ChatGPT gave me exactly what I wanted it to" posts are learning, mostly indirectly. GPT's moved from regurgitating appropriate texts to prompts, to synthesizing appropriate texts to prompts, but in both cases it's telling you what you want to hear. That's the point.

It's an incredible achievement, technologically. It's also very different from having feelings and emotions.

Or, if ChatGPT can "feel and express emotion" through this manner, does that mean its feelings and emotions are sociopathic in nature? Not in the terms of the disorder, but in simulating feelings and emotions because that helps it complete the task it's been given?

Or! What ChatGPT says after plugging the above question into it:

> No, ChatGPT does not have sociopathic tendencies. It is simply programmed to respond to certain prompts in a way that mimics human emotions and reactions, but it is not actually feeling or experiencing the emotions itself.

Post reply on HN