What a pointless article.
ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
331–340 of 444 posts
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#332I had a detailed conversion with chatGPT about how to gracefully handle terminating conditions of a rust program. It summarized cogently to register at_exit()’s for each thread, panic handlers, and register signal handlers. It advised and explain in detail on my query about the thread handling for each of these variants, gave really helpful advice on collecting join handles in a closure on the main thread and waiting…
I hear ya. I want to be able to just ask how to configure something on my Linux system instead of stumbling through man pages, stack exchange, and random websites hoping I am used the right verbiage to describe what I want to do. Or to have it write some boilerplate code for me while I focus on my domain specific implementation and testing.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#333I used daily to ask technical questions and it answers better than most of my colleagues and myself included.
I wouldn't call that a con. But that blogpost maybe ^^
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#334I had a detailed conversion with chatGPT about how to gracefully handle terminating conditions of a rust program. It summarized cogently to register at_exit()’s for each thread, panic handlers, and register signal handlers. It advised and explain in detail on my query about the thread handling for each of these variants, gave really helpful advice on collecting join handles in a closure on the main thread and waiting…
I have the same experience with it, it's very useful, especially when you are unsure about what to even look for. I have a few theories I suspect it's just a bias we have, most people aren't doing or creating anything, they aren't solving problems or learning new things constantly like engineers do, so chatgpt feels useless to them. Or perhaps the problems we want to talk or learn about are just easier for an ai to a…
> I suspect it's just a bias we have, most people aren't doing or creating anything, they aren't solving problems or learning new things constantly like engineers do, so chatgpt feels useless to them.
> Or perhaps the problems we want to talk or learn about are just easier for an ai to answer than the things they want out of it
I think the ABOVE two lines captures the real CORE of why they are two big groups of ChatGPT : supporters and haters
For technical people who are in coding, we may spend 20 minutes with many suggestions to get the final correct code. We test the code and Check-in into github and we EARNED a part of LIVING for that day (as employee).
Now take non-technical person, he is writing an article. He may spend one hour giving various suggestions to complete the article. At the end the article is OK, but not the best. He can not send it to some magazine or news paper, because it is not THE BEST. So in order have an article to have it accepted, he needs to have his ORIGINAL thinking. So in that sense ChatGPT is not SO helpful for him, for that one hour spent he feel ChatGPT is a Conman.
The point I am trying to make: for ChatGPT to be useful for a Technical person with a piece of code, ChatGPT does not have to be ORIGINAL thinker and produce the BEST, it can be average and It has existing template( previous code which workd), all it need to figure out is how to get to that existing solution.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Took 20-30 follow-up messages, telling it to add things, remove things, fix things, make things compatible with the versions of software it was running etc. So in other words you basically spent just as much time and effort as if you did it yourself?
I understand your point, and you are right. Had I been familiar with the image I was working with, and the version differences in configuration etc. It probably would have taken me the same amount of time. I look at this from a more zoomed out perspective, this is just the beginning. The point is its capable and will improve.
Will it improve though? I’m not a GPT hater or denier, but how do you even predict that it hasn’t already hit the wall? They can increase parameter count x100 again, but correctness is not some knob they can just dial up to 10. What if a learning dataset simply has not enough info for a correct answer to have a greater weight than all the “con” noise? What if an answer requires a sort of reasoning inaccessible to LLMs?
Stories itt can as well be boiled down to “I fed it with corrections for some time and it didn’t f..k up this last time and finally included everything into the answer”. What makes you think it would not do just that better or quicker?
Edit: Another probably highly related question is, can it answer “I don’t know this / not sure about these parts”? Never seen that in chat logs.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#336Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I got out of school I went to work for Oracle and decided to read the database manuals, even though I wasn't working on database stuff. When I left I read other database manuals and was able to help people code database stuff, not because I was a real database expert, but because I had read the manuals and they hadn't. I think something similar is going on here? For some subjects and some questions, ChatGPT acts…
Yes - from the examples I've seen, it appears that we're heading towards the Star Trek bridge computer. Even back in the days when TNG aired I don't think anyone really considered the computer "intelligent", just extremely capable and with a magical ability to fill in the blanks while also having a perfect memory for facts. Even without true intelligence (whatever that really is), there is no denying that having your…
I've posted this before, but using it as a coding partner reminds me of this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaUuE582vq8) from TNG (Geordi solves a problem on the holodeck).
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite limited, in frequently making even basic mistakes, but when it works well, it displays real intelligence. It synthesizes new knowledge, as opposed to just retrieving it. When it works well, It's not just a magic trick.
That’s not intelligence. If I generated and printed every possible 300 page book and handed all of those books to you, you’d get a book about the American Revolution where Taylor Swift led the armies of the revolutionaries. That would not make my system intelligent. I haven’t written anything because I don’t know how to write. I’ve literally just got every possible book and you’ve been given one at random that seems…
Speaking of movie quotes.
From Good Will Hunting
"Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth"? You got that from Vickers' "Work in Essex County," page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?"Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#339Is it just me or are peoples expectations of chatGPT absolutely ridiculous?
No it's not a magic oracle. Yes you still have to check your work. Yes it will make mistakes.
But as a tool to assist you? It's incredible.
Re: ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the same experience with it, it's very useful, especially when you are unsure about what to even look for. I have a few theories I suspect it's just a bias we have, most people aren't doing or creating anything, they aren't solving problems or learning new things constantly like engineers do, so chatgpt feels useless to them. Or perhaps the problems we want to talk or learn about are just easier for an ai to a…
> I suspect it's just a bias we have, most people aren't doing or creating anything, they aren't solving problems or learning new things constantly like engineers do, so chatgpt feels useless to them. > Or perhaps the problems we want to talk or learn about are just easier for an ai to answer than the things they want out of it I think the ABOVE two lines captures the real CORE of why they are two big groups of ChatG…
I gave my ABOVE answer text to ChatGPT and asked to refine my idea, this is what it produced.
-------
There are two distinct groups of opinions regarding the usefulness of ChatGPT: supporters and detractors. These differing perspectives stem from the varying needs and expectations of individuals in different professions.
For technical individuals, such as coders, the process of finding the correct solution to a problem can take a considerable amount of time. ChatGPT can be extremely helpful in streamlining this process by suggesting code snippets that have worked in the past, reducing the time spent on trial and error. In this sense, ChatGPT does not have to be an original thinker or produce the absolute best solution, as long as it helps the coder to reach a workable solution efficiently.
However, for non-technical individuals, such as writers, the focus is often on originality and creativity. ChatGPT may not be as helpful in this context because it is limited to suggesting based on pre-existing templates and previous examples. A writer who spends an hour relying on ChatGPT's suggestions may not end up with the best possible article, which could result in a feeling of dissatisfaction. In this scenario, the writer may feel that ChatGPT is not truly helping them to reach their full potential, leading them to view it as a hindrance rather than a help.
In conclusion, the usefulness of ChatGPT is dependent on the individual's specific needs and expectations. For those in technical fields, it can be a valuable tool, while for those in more creative professions, its limitations may outweigh its benefits.