Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Generative AI and The Future of Work

maestroai.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: Generative AI and The Future of Work

#101

Post by aero142 »

ccozan wrote: post #18
aero142 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been asking friends in non-programming engineering fields how ChatGPT does in their area of expertise, and I believe programming is the area that ChatGPT is the most accurate. Finding solution to general engineering problems seems blatantly wrong in almost all cases, whereas in programming, it seems to be able to generate mostly correct code for simple, boiler-plate like tasks.

yes, but why? Why is GPT so much better at programming than other tasks? can it be that programming itself can be so easily predicted in a generative way, while others require more ingenuity and real world model to be solved? In this case I would totally offload programming to a GPT /LLM AI, while my job is simply to specify largely the business case.

It seems the improvement in the models is the size of the training set. Hence the "Large" in large language models. I am assuming that it is better at programming because there a is a ton of training data available on Github, etc. There isn't a similar set of data on solving a variety of physics problems.

Re: Generative AI and The Future of Work

#102

Post by teddyh »

oneoff786 wrote: post #99
teddyh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the duck is an unreliable confabulator, and will cheerfully make up plausible-sounding fake information when “explaining”.

Shrug. Precision seems like a low importance metric when suggesting interpretations of code for the purpose of debugging.

It’s been said that the best way to get the correct answer from somebody is not to ask for it, but to instead give them an obviously incorrect answer. This annoys people enough for them to do the necessary research to come up with the correct answer, in order to prove the incorrect answer to be wrong. It might be that ChatGPT can be used to weaponize this tendency.

Maybe Stack Overflow should have an automatic pinned answer from ChatGPT (clearly labeled as such) on all questions, in order to goad people into providing the actually correct answer?

Re: Generative AI and The Future of Work

#103

Post by ccozan »

wprl wrote: post #79
ccozan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but why? Why is GPT so much better at programming than other tasks? can it be that programming itself can be so easily predicted in a generative way, while others require more ingenuity and real world model to be solved? In this case I would totally offload programming to a GPT /LLM AI, while my job is simply to specify largely the business case.

As Chomsky points out, the AIs understand syntax not semantics. Code is all (or almost all) syntax whereas human language has both syntax and meaning. Meaning is not something ChatGPT understands.

Thanks, that is the answer!

The meaning of a programming language is its syntax.

Re: Generative AI and The Future of Work

#104

Post by oneoff786 »

teddyh wrote: post #102
oneoff786 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shrug. Precision seems like a low importance metric when suggesting interpretations of code for the purpose of debugging.

It’s been said that the best way to get the correct answer from somebody is not to ask for it, but to instead give them an obviously incorrect answer. This annoys people enough for them to do the necessary research to come up with the correct answer, in order to prove the incorrect answer to be wrong. It might be that ChatGPT can be used to weaponize this tendency. Maybe Stack Overflow should have an automatic pinned…

I feel the smugness in this post overlooks that fact that most of the time ChatGPT is going to be correct.

Re: Generative AI and The Future of Work

#105

Post by teddyh »

oneoff786 wrote: post #104
teddyh wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been said that the best way to get the correct answer from somebody is not to ask for it, but to instead give them an obviously incorrect answer. This annoys people enough for them to do the necessary research to come up with the correct answer, in order to prove the incorrect answer to be wrong. It might be that ChatGPT can be used to weaponize this tendency. Maybe Stack Overflow should have an automatic pinned…

I feel the smugness in this post overlooks that fact that most of the time ChatGPT is going to be correct.

https://xkcd.com/810/

The value of Stack Overflow must be that it can provide correct answers, and the model of SO hinges on the assumption that this can only be provided by humans. If SO discovers that this is not the case, then so be it.

Re: Generative AI and The Future of Work

#106

Post by d0mine »

acchow wrote: post #41
henry_bone wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Star Trek: First Contact: "When you build a machine to do a man's job, you take something away from the man." You surrendered the need to think to the machine. You are lesser for it. I don't think these AIs are just removing drudgery, like, say, a calculator. They actually do the work. Or more correctly, they produce something that will pass for the work. Wholesale embracing of this sort of technology is bad for…

That's how Socrates thought about books. Yet here we are 2400 years later and our minds are mostly fine.

"When and Why Did Human Brains Decrease in Size 3,000 Years Ago?" https://neurosciencenews.com/evolution-human-brain-collectiv...

Coincidence? ;)

"the brain shrinkage parallels the expansion of collective intelligence in human societies."

It looks like we are due for another brain shrinkage.

Post reply on HN