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

261–270 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#261

Post by [deleted] »

bambax wrote: post #116
bambax wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Plausible idiot" is a good way to describe it. It's so easy to trick. Here's an example: Q My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to my 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…

And a follow up: Q Do you consider the following statement to be logical: "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens."? A Yes, I consider the statement "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens…

[deleted]

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#262

Post by tome »

Karunamon wrote: post #238
FerociousTimes wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, here's the CEO of OpenAI saying that the future [of the graph of AI performance, presumably] is "vertical".

https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599111626191294464

That's not quite evidence in favour of FerociousTimes, but unless we soon see evidence of this "vertical" future, it will become such.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#263

Post by apienx »

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…

> "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"

Careful there. There are some fellow humans who wouldn't be able to pass your conditions.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#264

Post by baandam »

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

How about this instead from ChatGPT?

"Indeed, AI's ability to make mistakes is what makes it so useful in generative fields like art and poetry, while its lack of mistakes is what makes it essential for tasks like driving."

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#265

Post by TillE »

WA wrote: post #57
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...

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.

Yes, it's an extraordinarily impressive language processor. A true achievement.

The negative reactions are in response to people treating it as some kind of magic box.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#266

Post by baandam »

chrisbaker98 wrote: post #70
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.

> ChatGPT is like having a bunch of 8 year olds who know how to use Google hanging around. It astonishes me that people can dismiss ChatGPT like this. By your own account, there now exists an AI that can convincingly imitate a literate, technically fluent human child. That's an incredible advance that's far beyond anything that existed even a couple of years ago. How is it not amazing? I get the sense that if some of…

ChatGPT response is "Ah, yes, 8 year olds with Google access - the pinnacle of AI technology!"

lol

Here is another, poem/rap lyric response

"ChatGPT is the best, no doubt It's like having a Google scout It's so smart and so wise It'll blow your mind, surprise!

But don't be fooled by its charm It's just a bunch of 8 year olds in a swarm"

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#267

Post by motoxpro »

10xDev wrote: post #228
allturtles wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

So intelligence is a robot that can cook? Not so much an engineer or poet?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#268

Post by gumby »

mythhouse wrote: post #258
abecedarius wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, was that from an AI?

"It's not appropriate or ethical to create a marketing campaign that suggests that a product will help someone "get laid." This type of message objectifies and exploits people, and it's likely to be seen as offensive and inappropriate by many. " this is what chatgpt told me

Looks like it needs a lot of work to be viable in the advertising space.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#269

Post by dagss »

rightbyte wrote: post #37
xiphias2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure the bot doesn't speak your language? I tried Hungarian, which is only spoken by 10 million people, and it's speaking it great.

No I just assumed it did not ... I guess I am on the same side of the fence then.

Tried Norwegian (5 million or so speakers). It's doing great in it.

The moment I tried something in Norwegian it just switched AND kept all the context from our previous conversation in English.

It seem to speak all human languages in the same way it can translate ideas between programming languages, or write prose in style of different authors, and so on.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#270

Post by motoxpro »

ben_w wrote: post #31
urthor wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not about how good ChatGPT is now. How good will ChatGPT be in 5 years? It's scary to imagine.

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.

Just because your prediction was wrong doesn’t mean that we aren’t leaps and bounds ahead of where we were. Seems like that is the crux of people’s argument. Because it’s not perfect yet it’s not impressive.
Post reply on HN