61–70 of 145 posts
I give a prompt I get an answer. I give keywords I get a list of results. Search Engine results were never guaranteed to be 'right' just relevant to the user to used the keywords. I'm not sure why ChatGPT has to have a 'higher bar' than Google but in either case a human was always needed to interpret the final output. It's just super convenient and a LOT of people are missing this. ChatGPT is the first ever chatbot t…
I'm trying to understand how big of a deal ChatGPT and the like is or isn't. Even people in AI don't seem to agree on whether it's going to change everything or it's overhyped and not a major advancement. Which is it? Or somewhere in the middle? "if you think AI chatter has reached an annoying level right now you're in for something else. it's going to be the only thing on anybody's mind starting shortly... i'm findi…
I have been saying lately "if your job can be replaced by AI, it should". I know that sounds crass, but I'm a person who is always trying to replace my tasks with small shell scripts leaving only the real thinking to be the stuff that I do. I remember a long time ago Joel from Joel on Software made a post/comment (I can't find it, so it must have been a comment) about how the hard part of programming is interpreting…
> Of course the spec isn't complete, if it were complete, it would cover every edge case and be as complex as the code.
Fair, but triggering nonetheless because I've definitely seen this argument used as an excuse for why there was basically no spec aside from "an iPhone app used to rate beer" and that there is some kind of value in such a contribution that couldn't otherwise be found by pulling in random strangers from the street and asking them about cool things they wished that computers could do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main problem is that, if you don't know enough details about the domain, *you can never be sure that the response is correct or not*. So, if you are using it as a “personal assistant” and “supervise it” is a big (very big) deal since it's going to save a lot of time. There are also some unknowns related to the cost/time needed to train and run the infrastructure behind it that could change a lot of things.
how about with a stackoverflow like site for help? That's the idea I thought of: https://www.gptoverflow.link/
Maybe can be useful if actual humans validate/fix ChatGPT response, but in this case probably better to put effort to fix response directly in ChatGPT.
Chatgpt certainly spits out answers and is often right or reasonably close to right. But it cant be trusted on complex tasks and I do not think it is a good AI, I have to repeat, this thing is supposed to be an AI,but it does the AI part very poorly. We all know it will trip over questions like what is the record for crossing the atlantic by car/foot and such. But I have realized there is no feedback loop, or a wrong…
That's because it's a large language model, not an AI. Anyone calling it an AI is buying/selling the hype cycle, or (at best) using an over-general term for ML in general.
It's also clearly the most advanced AI product available to date. Meanwhile, I'm almost certain you have no problem saying a guard NPC in Skyrim has "an AI", so, eh.
If you split the song generation and the chords ("write me a song in the style of Nick Cave"/"Can you suggest a chord progression for the Nick Cave song you wrote earlier?") I find you get a more complete explanation of the chords ("This progression uses mostly basic chords that are easy to play and allows for a lot of room for interpretation and personalization. The G to C progression in the chorus creates a sense of movement and progression, while the use of Am and D chords add a touch of dissonance and tension to the melody. The use of the Am chord in the bridge creates a sense of introspection, which fits well with the lyrics"). It can also write guitar tab.
Recipes: "Give me a recipe that includes strawberries and anchovies"
Tests: "Can you write some unit tests for this method?"
On a recent episode of the All In podcast, one of the hosts made a remark along the lines of "in the future [when AI has replaced the knowledge worker], insatiable demand will exist for people who are experts in querying NLPs." I think we're seeing that here.
Yep. The High Priests who, for an offering and proper supplication, will take your request to the Oracle. Or maybe we will see something like, "Hey, ChatGPT1, formulate a question with appropriate qualifiers and specifications to get ChatGPT2 to return the following..."
Can someone please write an HN browser extension or something that just hides anythign related to GPT?
I'm trying to understand how big of a deal ChatGPT and the like is or isn't. Even people in AI don't seem to agree on whether it's going to change everything or it's overhyped and not a major advancement. Which is it? Or somewhere in the middle? "if you think AI chatter has reached an annoying level right now you're in for something else. it's going to be the only thing on anybody's mind starting shortly... i'm findi…
I'm trying to understand how big of a deal ChatGPT and the like is or isn't. Even people in AI don't seem to agree on whether it's going to change everything or it's overhyped and not a major advancement. Which is it? Or somewhere in the middle? "if you think AI chatter has reached an annoying level right now you're in for something else. it's going to be the only thing on anybody's mind starting shortly... i'm findi…
IMO it's analogous to adaptive cruise control on cars. It's very useful in certain specific circumstances, and genuinely helpful. But not yet necessary or transformative unless you live in LA/sit in traffic for a living. People are claiming to use it to write code, I'm curious how sophisticated said code is. Sure it might take out of some of the grunt work, like an ultra-sophisticated find-and-replace, but you still…
tl;dr: in some instances I had to coach it pretty directly to get what I wanted. In other instances it was flawless. And to your point, some of the code it generated was both clearer and faster than the code I would have written for the same task.
I'm trying to understand how big of a deal ChatGPT and the like is or isn't. Even people in AI don't seem to agree on whether it's going to change everything or it's overhyped and not a major advancement. Which is it? Or somewhere in the middle? "if you think AI chatter has reached an annoying level right now you're in for something else. it's going to be the only thing on anybody's mind starting shortly... i'm findi…
What is in sight is AI that can (sometimes) fool us into thinking it is "strong". And whether it is or not becomes a point for philosophers to debate.
We're heading toward a situation captured fairly well in "The Good Place" -- is Janet actually alive? Is killing her wrong? She would tell you no, as long as you're not approaching the button that actually reboots her :-)