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

ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

drive.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#101

Post by huijzer »

time_to_smile wrote: post #81
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT made me rethink my assessment of how close we are to general AI. I was of the opinion that we need some major architectural innovations to actually get to general AI and while I think we still need some huge discoveries, I think ChatGPT was one of those milestones.

Has everyone else been using a different tool than me? ChatGPT is interesting, but is laughably bad at any non-trivial instruction. It's fantastic at generating content that on first glance looks remarkably right, but always fails fine inspection. All I've seen from LLMs is much better demos of the types of funny things markov chains were generating two decades ago (anyone remember the various academic paper generato…

> ChatGPT is interesting, but is laughably bad at any non-trivial instruction.

Have you actually looked at the linked Cheat Sheet?

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#102

Post by 5e92cb50239222b »

scifibestfi wrote: post #21
jiggywiggy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use chatgpt to write code. If it gets a bit better and can connected to an editor to create files, update existing files developer productivity will go through the roof

Is it better than Copilot?

I use it to generate whole test suites from function definitions. Not one test, but dozens, covering various inputs and edge cases. TDD purists will balk at that, but it saves serious amounts of typing out boilerplate. You have to recheck its suggestions, of course.

I couldn't get Copilot to spew anything like that (a single simple test at best, and it fails at that more frequently than it produces something useful).

It's also quite good at converting relatively simple programs or configs between languages. For example, I used it to convert PostgreSQL DDL queries into Hibernate models (and also in reverse), JS snippets into OCaml, XML into YAML, maven pom.xml into gradle build scripts, and a few more.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#103

Post by huijzer »

lm28469 wrote: post #29
simonw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand these comparisons between crypto and generative AI models. The AI models just seem so clearly and instantly more useful to me.

> useful to me. To you yes. Now go out in the real world in which most people don't work in an office and mostly use internet for entertainment Crypto seemed very useful to many people, and they still do, you'll find thousand upon thousands of comments and this very website preaching cryptos as the next game changer

> Now go out in the real world in which most people don't work in an office and mostly use internet for entertainment

I wanted to refute your point by giving some YouTube videos about practical uses and their views. Then I checked YouTube's trending videos and compared the view counter to that of a PewDiePie video of 2 days ago and now I agree. You are right.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#104

Post by IAmPym »

The mental model I’ve found most useful in guessing how this will affect us is the migration from assembly to a more human readable C compiler

Nowadays assembly is almost never used because it has been abstracted (yes I use it sometimes for DSP, SIMD and processor specific optimizations but it has largely been abstracted)

ChatGPT will likely have a similar switch to new critical skill sets but it will take a while

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#105

Post by vb-8448 »

deckard1 wrote: post #96
vb-8448 wrote: post #42

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.

If it's an assistant that you constantly have to double check their work, then they would get fired ASAP. That's the problem with Copilot. If I'm not familiar with the API calls then I'm still going to have to dig into the docs. I could run it and it might "work", but that doesn't guarantee that it's correct. There are a whole lot of things in the C API that work but are not correct, such as the gets() function. If I…

> If it's an assistant that you constantly have to double check their work, then they would get fired ASAP.

It's an assistant that creates drafts for you. You still need to check them, but usually reading is a lot easier and less time-consuming than writing. I used it a couple of times to compose some long replies email, and it was just fantastic. I had to fix some minor stuff, but I complete the task in less than 5 minutes while without ChatGPT it would take me about 30 minutes.

> That's the problem with Copilot. If I'm not familiar with the API calls then I'm still going to have to dig into the docs. I could run it and it might "work", but that doesn't guarantee that it's correct.

You have to run/compile it anyway and if you combine it with existing tools (linters, type checkers and so on) you will detect this kind of anomalies very soon.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#106

Post by CuriouslyC »

lm28469 wrote: post #29
simonw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand these comparisons between crypto and generative AI models. The AI models just seem so clearly and instantly more useful to me.

> useful to me. To you yes. Now go out in the real world in which most people don't work in an office and mostly use internet for entertainment Crypto seemed very useful to many people, and they still do, you'll find thousand upon thousands of comments and this very website preaching cryptos as the next game changer

Except good luck explaining bitcoin to someone non technical, but sit that same person down in front of Midjourney and have them prompt up some images and they'll have a great time.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#107

Post by 93po »

michaelrpeskin wrote: post #17
scifibestfi wrote: post #9

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…

> that just frees people up to bring value higher up the value chain.

I think at some point this will stop being true. Obviously people displaced from jobs in the industrial revolution found other work, but at some point we can't expect the bottom 10% of a population (in terms of ability to perform non-menial jobs) to do "higher value" work.

I don't say this in any disparaging way and I am not in any way demeaning them or suggesting they don't matter. But they don't necessarily fit into society's expectations for "higher value" work.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#108

Post by 93po »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #60
s_dev wrote: post #52

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…

It needs a higher bar commensurate to the cocaine-confidence it has been trained to portray. If it doesn't know the answer, it just dreams up something and then swears blind it's 100% true. That's problematic. If it could be trained to say no, and to give, say, a confidence score to its answers, then it will be much better.

Agreed with this, and Sam Altman himself says this is the next big milestone for improvement. It needs to stop being confidently incorrect.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#109

Post by 93po »

heroHACK17 wrote: post #55

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.

> insatiable demand will exist for people who are experts in querying NLPs

We already have an insatiable demand for people who are experts in querying search engines: software developers

The remark seems like a natural evolution of that

Post reply on HN