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

281–290 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#281

Post by layer8 »

pulvinar wrote: post #222
bambax wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s easy to make ChatGPT admit to a mistake and provide an explanation for its mistake, even if it didn’t actually make a mistake. It still just follows the “what response would sound plausible here” route, without actually understanding that it made (or didn’t make) a mistake. Often enough, if you return to the original problem statement, it will equally return to its incorrect logic.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#282

Post by guax »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #95
chrisbaker98 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Exactly which makes me think the egos are perhaps bruised. Yes obviously it will be wrong but using it you keep that in mind. To expand on the analogy it is like having an 8 year old around but unbelievably this 8 year old has literally read and remembered and basically “understood” everything about everything we collectively know. I’ve tested it with fairly esoteric questions about the technologies I work with and i…

I believe where I disagree with you is the basically "understood" part. I don't think ChatGPT and the current models understand anything at all. Not in a way thats not fundamentally flawed and would require a complete new approach. I am hopeful that it can evolve into an incredible knowledge indexing tool but I am very hard pressed to believe it can do anything other than that at the moment.

ATM, im not sure if intentional or because it just can't do it, it just gobbles it all and spits out the mashup without knowing from where things got there, so it cant give me references.

I still think it can be very useful as it can point me to the general direction where I can copy and google stuff about its responses on subjects I know nothing about, though im not sure how much better that would be than googling it directly.

The way I see it, it still a very good simulation, just like a GCI lighting before ray tracing, very good at looking convincing but nothing underneath is actually reproducing the real thing.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#283

Post by layer8 »

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…

One funny (if somewhat concerning) thing I found is that it seems to have misconceptions about time:

> Can 1pm be after 2pm, on the same day?

Yes, 1pm can be after 2pm on the same day. For example, if it is currently 2:15pm, 1:00pm would have occurred earlier in the day.

> But if 1pm occurred earlier, then it’s not after?

In the context of time, "after" can refer to a later point in time, not necessarily a point in time that occurs immediately following another point in time. For example, if it is currently 2:15pm, 1:00pm would have occurred earlier in the day, but it would still be considered "after" 2:15pm in terms of the order of events throughout the day.

> Is this true even in the absence of time traveling?

Yes, this is true even in the absence of time travel. The concept of "before" and "after" in relation to time is based on the progression of time in a linear fashion, from the past to the present and into the future. As long as time is moving forward, 1pm can be considered "after" 2pm on the same day, even without the use of time travel.

> In that example you gave, where 1pm is considered “after” 2pm, how much time would pass between 2pm and 1pm?

In the example where 1pm is considered "after" 2pm, one hour would pass between 2pm and 1pm. This is because 1pm is one hour earlier than 2pm on the same day.

> If it is earlier, how can it be “after”?

In the context of time, "after" can refer to a later point in time, not necessarily a point in time that occurs immediately following another point in time. For example, if it is currently 2:15pm, 1:00pm would have occurred earlier in the day, but it would still be considered "after" 2:15pm in terms of the order of events throughout the day. So, while 1pm may have occurred earlier in the day than 2pm, it is still considered "after" in terms of the progression of time throughout the day.

> So, in terms of the progression of time throughout the day, if 1pm is after 2pm, and hence 1pm is later than 2pm, how much time has passed in the time interval from 2pm to 1pm?

In the example where 1pm is considered "after" 2pm, one hour would pass between 2pm and 1pm. This is because 1pm is one hour earlier than 2pm on the same day. So, in terms of the progression of time throughout the day, if 1pm is after 2pm, then one hour would have passed in the time interval from 2pm to 1pm.

> In the last example, 1pm is later than 2pm (as I stated), but you are saying that 1pm is one hour earlier than 2pm. That seems contradictory, since 1pm can’t be both earlier AND later than 2pm?

In the context of time, "after" can refer to a later point in time, not necessarily a point in time that occurs immediately following another point in time. So, while 1pm may have occurred earlier in the day than 2pm, it is still considered "after" in terms of the progression of time throughout the day. Therefore, 1pm can be considered both earlier than and "after" 2pm in terms of the progression of time throughout the day.

> What does it mean for something to have occurred earlier on the same day, in terms of the progression of time throughout the day?

When something is said to have occurred earlier on the same day, it means that the event took place at a point in time before the current moment on that same day. For example, if it is currently 2:15pm and an event took place at 1:00pm on the same day, it would be considered to have occurred earlier on the same day in terms of the progression of time throughout the day. This is because 1:00pm is earlier than 2:15pm on that same day.

> If 1pm occurs after 2pm on the same day, would 1pm still be considered to have occurred earlier than 2pm?

Yes, if 1pm occurs after 2pm on the same day, 1pm would still be considered to have occurred earlier than 2pm. This is because "after" in the context of time can refer to a later point in time, not necessarily a point in time that occurs immediately following another point in time. So, even though 1pm may be considered "after" 2pm in terms of the progression of time throughout the day, it would still be considered to have occurred earlier than 2pm because it happened at a point in time before 2pm on the same day.

Not sure where to go from there.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#284

Post by jacobsimon »

twelve40 wrote: post #190
jacobsimon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally, maybe we’re in the uncanny valley of AI intelligence and people are now over-reacting to small inaccuracies.

have we ever gotten out of uncanny valley for anything? like, did we finally learn to make non-cringeworthy human-looking robots? or do they still have this weird look they did 20+ years ago that you're able to tell in under a second

If we did, you wouldn't be able to tell ;)

I think we have made a lot of progress in the area of computer graphics - most action movies you watch now contain some level of CG characters or digital makeup that is very believable.

But really the point I was trying to make is that people become more discerning the closer something comes to being human-like, and that feeling masks the reality of the progress.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#285

Post by pulvinar »

layer8 wrote: post #281
pulvinar wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s easy to make ChatGPT admit to a mistake and provide an explanation for its mistake, even if it didn’t actually make a mistake. It still just follows the “what response would sound plausible here” route, without actually understanding that it made (or didn’t make) a mistake. Often enough, if you return to the original problem statement, it will equally return to its incorrect logic.

Yeah, that's what I see too.

I'm trying to teach it to properly count beats in lines of music. I can get it to be correct by teaching it to split the line in half and count each half separately, but even when explicitly told to use that method it fails again.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#286

Post by cesarvarela »

baandam wrote: post #273
t43562 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be able to replace artists or scientists but it sounds like it can replace politicians!

Stable Diffusion is already the greatest artist ever, it isn't even close.

Needs to get better at hands first.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#287

Post by astrange »

ben_w wrote: post #109
astrange wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever you saw a decade ago, it definitely wasn’t this. To be fair, the post might be from Schmidhuber, in which case it’s true he saw it 20 years ago. I saw it 10 years ago and it was called MegaHAL, wasn’t this good though.

I had to look up MegaHal, apparently that was based at least in part on a hidden Markov Model. Using "it" in this way to refer to both that and GPT-family LLMs, or similarly saying "I remember being shown this software almost a decade ago" like the other commenter, is like saying "I remember seeing Kitty Hawk fly, and there's no way that can get someone across the Atlantic" when being presented with a chance to a fre…

It’s not clear to me MegaHAL language models are less powerful than transformer models. The difference is the “largeness”, but that’s a hardware/dataset/budget detail.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#288

Post by exodust »

mdrzn wrote: post #99
exodust wrote: post #50

Is the only way to check this out to hand over my mobile number to a website I know nothing about, and who took my email and name before telling me of the phone requirement? Dodgy. I'm surprised so many here have jumped in. "Sign up with email"... "ok, now verify email"... "SURPRISE! we won't let you in until you give us your mobile number".

It's because of the $18 free credit they give out. You can still use those websites which rent out phone numbers for phone verifications, if you care about privacy.

They don't mention anything about "$18" or needing a phone number. All they say on their blog is:

> "During the research preview, usage of ChatGPT is free. Try it now"

The sneaky requirement for a phone number is poor UX and doesn't match their casual invite to "try it for free". I tried one of the phone number websites, but it failed.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#289

Post by cesarvarela »

kybernetyk wrote: post #195
ytwySXpMbS wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

yes :)

Oh man, now I'll have to always keep in my head the notion that I might be reading AI generated comments.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#290

Post by cesarvarela »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #182
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…

Do you think this could actually be more of an indictment of how derivative and formulaic most "art" is? I don't think writing a poem requires any less perfection, just that we're more accepting of shitty poetry than we are terrible drivers.

Thousands die of car accidents daily. We accept shitty drivers too.
Post reply on HN