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

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#131

Post by scottLobster »

ilaksh wrote: post #120
scottLobster wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but this kinda proves my point. It can potentially generate good code for simple, atomic problems. It can't write me a REST service that hooks into an existing web backed spread over multiple repos of proprietary code. Any relationship not visible in the code seems to be outside its capabilities to understand for the moment. I'll be impressed when I can point it at a server cluster and the associated dozen repos…

So you're saying you won't be impressed until it can 100% replace you. Seems like you will have trouble adapting if you decide to wait that long.

More like I'll invest time learning a tool relative to the potential payoff. Right now this tool would be of minimal utility. The vast majority of code I write isn't "make this isolated algorithm more efficient", it's "implement/integrate this new feature into the server cluster". Without deep understanding of the software/server architecture and the ability to derive potential tradeoffs of different approaches, my job cannot be done.

This "if you wait to see results the opportunity will be gone!" mentality is for VCs and other people who's business models require them to be way out on the risk curve, who make a lot of bad calls, but lose relatively little when they fail. It was also partially a product of low interest rates. It is not applicable to most individuals/organizations.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#132

Post by rustyminnow »

darkwater wrote: post #128
rustyminnow wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! That really had nothing to do with what I asked tho... This bit of thread is literally about using it to write code, so saying "pretend you're a PM" is not really relevant at all

What I meant is that your (our) job as a developer (in a mid-term future, I would say 10-12 years) will be made largely irrelevant, because a PM will be able to program by explaining what they wants to a LLM. That's why you are not seeing any real benefit from it now.

Right that's great. I get that. It's gonna put me out of a job in 10-12 years. I'll worry about that later.

The person I responded to was saying that they (as a dev I believe) have been seeing huge productivity gains _right now_ and that's what I'm interested in.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#133

Post by pmarreck »

TylerE wrote: post #32
pmarreck wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could, but I won't, because you're clearly not understanding how big a deal this is

Understanding "what a big deal it is" != literally half the home page being freaking AI posts every day, most of which are just bloviating.

I'm sorry it's irritating you.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#134

Post by slaymaker1907 »

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…

Really? I found it to be extremely capable at very difficult tasks. For example, I had it guide me through using the ODBC SQL drivers (C++). It's also extremely good at generating fictional stories. Unlike other AI solutions, it has a lot of context. For example, it generated one story that mostly used generic names like "the king" or "evil wizard", but I was able to get it to fill in those names in a conversational way, not by modifying the original prompt like you'd need to do with plain GPT-3.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#135

Post by mattwoodnyc »

williamcotton wrote: post #130
essentialfloss wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not letting me look at the links, I think they're formatted for you if you're logged in but don't allow someone else to view the files. You may have to share the files from within dropbox to get a public link.

Here's a WIP with at least some animated gifs: https://williamcotton.com/articles/the-making-of-distant-des...

Thanks for sharing

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#136

Post by irrational »

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…

> It may keep replacing the bottom tier workers, but that just frees people up to bring value higher up the value chain.

My concern is for people like my son who has autism. He has a job at the airport slinging bags into and out of planes. It is a job he enjoys because he likes transportation (trains, planes, etc.) Realistically, it is a job that is at the very top of the limit of his abilities. If an AI robot took over his bottom tier job, he would not be freed up to bring value higher up the value chain. He would probably become homeless if we were not around to support him.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#137

Post by irrational »

relativ575 wrote: post #115
93po wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

We can definitely expect the bottom 10% in your example to do "higher value" work, once their currently meager work is automated. For once they can become supervisors of robots doing the same work they do today, since they have experience and can provide guidance to the robots. Also, they can transition to work that benefits from the human interaction standpoint, such as elderly care. They will need some training, bu…

The bottom 10% are usually those with disabilities like autism. Many of them really aren't capable of getting higher education. I have a 21 year old son with autism that has never even learned the multiplication tables (as a single example) despite our spending tens of thousands of dollars on private tutoring and other training outside of his schooling. He works a low level job at the airport that he enjoys. But, realistically, it is at the upper limits of his abilities. He is far far away from being a lone case. I really don't think many of the bottom 10% can be trained into higher value jobs.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#138

Post by DrSiemer »

partiallypro wrote: post #48
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 think it's a big deal for some things, but for others is not. I think it's a good tool, but as of yet can't replace a human. The writing is pretty mediocre. I know people that use it to write slide deck copy, which I think is nice because no one really cares about that and it saves some time. I do think it's a nice tool to get a general idea of something or even can be used as a writing prompt. For some coding answ…

The biggest advantage is not in finding the answer. It's in being able to ask questions about that answer and getting immediate and pretty accurate responses.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#139

Post by dns_snek »

relativ575 wrote: post #115
93po wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

We can definitely expect the bottom 10% in your example to do "higher value" work, once their currently meager work is automated. For once they can become supervisors of robots doing the same work they do today, since they have experience and can provide guidance to the robots. Also, they can transition to work that benefits from the human interaction standpoint, such as elderly care. They will need some training, bu…

> Also, they can transition to work that benefits from the human interaction standpoint, such as elderly care.

This sounds great in theory, and I fully agree, but the system of compensation and wealth distribution will need to be turned upside down for that to happen.

The value created by current and future automation will somehow need to be captured and distributed to people whose financially profitable jobs are going to be replaced with unprofitable, but socially-beneficial work, there's really no way around it. Those people will still need to be fed, housed and have access to at least basic luxuries.

Furthermore, what do we do in a future "ideal" world where robots and AI are capable of providing basic necessities to sustain every human alive? Capitalism would likely break down one way or another, with branching paths that either take us to an utopia or a nightmare dystopia.

Re: ChatGPT Cheat Sheet

#140

Post by gcanyon »

naasking wrote: post #92
gcanyon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"strong AI is not within sight" 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 :-)

> What is in sight is AI that can (sometimes) fool us into thinking it is "strong". Or maybe you've fooled yourself into thinking that "strong AI"/general intelligence is actually not just a bunch of tricks that mash together into a smorgasbord that usually works quite well. That includes human intelligence.

I have definitely not fooled myself into thinking that "strong AI" is not a bunch of tricks that mash together into a smorgasbord. That's exactly what I think :-)

Including human intelligence, as you say. I'm reasonably convinced that "intelligence" is an emergent higher-order abstraction that arises from deterministic processes, at the cellular, or digital, level.

I would, however, make a distinction between resilient and brittle intelligence. ChatGPT, for example, seems very human-like for some percentage of responses, but when it goes off the rails, it goes completely wrong. Humans can sometimes be like that, but (I don't think) to the same degree, and certainly they are often capable of a softer landing when they get into unfamiliar territory.

Post reply on HN