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

Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 348 posts

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#101

Post by silveroriole »

jeffbee wrote: post #7

That's odd because when I gave ChatGPT my icebreaker interview question that I used a lot at Google it fell right on its face. And this is a question I expect teenagers to ace in one minute.

Agreed, something is odd about this. A few people have sent me code that ChatGPT has written for them. They don’t have the capability to determine if the code is good so they ask me. If the result is even something that will compile or address the asked problem at all, it’s barely competent nonsense that only a beginner programmer would write. For example asking it for code that will generate recipes, and you get back code for a random selection from an array with “Italian, Chinese, pizza”. It never asks clarifying questions either, it’s perfectly happy with a “garbage in garbage out” approach. So if ChatGPT is passing the interview, the interview questions are not selecting for what I would consider a good developer.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#102

Post by thro1 »

lechacker wrote: post #47
22SAS wrote: post #5

So, a LLM, trained extensively on StackOverflow and other data (possibly the plethora of LC solutions out there), is fed a bunch of LC questions and spits out the correct solutions? In other news, water is blue. It is one thing to train an AI on megatons of data, for questions which have solutions. The day ChatGPT can build a highly scalable system from scratch, or an ultra-low latency trading system that beats the c…

Water isn't blue, it's transparent

Not really - there are blue and blood red oceans, but you might never hear about it (there is a book about it and strategy worth to read).

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#103

Post by soulofmischief »

ghaff wrote: post #52
mobilefriendly wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly you didn't learn the meaning of "barbaric". Memorization and mastery of vocabulary and multiplication factors are a base towards more advanced learning.

One can simultaneously agree that there's probably too much rote memorization in school while also thinking that some basic level of math skills including simple multiplication without a calculator, vocabulary, certain historical/scientific/civics/etc. facts, ability to at least print, etc. are important.

Learning about these things allows you to think differently and transform incoming information in more novel and well-adapted ways.

You can't ask ChatGPT about things you don't know to ask about, and when you are able to use this tech on the fly through neural chip AR interfaces, everything is going to be totally fucked anyway and human relationships will look nothing like they do now.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#104

Post by mensetmanusman »

fdgsdfogijq wrote: post #3

Will humanity finally be liberated from memorization? Forcing school children to memorize and then regurgitate facts is barbaric, and so is using it as a measure in hiring.

Memorization has a roll in prepping the mind for understanding later.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#105

Post by CommieBobDole »

tbalsam wrote: post #16
22SAS wrote: post #5

So, a LLM, trained extensively on StackOverflow and other data (possibly the plethora of LC solutions out there), is fed a bunch of LC questions and spits out the correct solutions? In other news, water is blue. It is one thing to train an AI on megatons of data, for questions which have solutions. The day ChatGPT can build a highly scalable system from scratch, or an ultra-low latency trading system that beats the c…

If it helps, this likely is coming. I think we have a tendency to mentally move the goalposts when it comes to this kind of thing as a self-defense mechanism. Years ago this would have been a similar level of impossibility. Since all a codebase like that is is a kind of directed graph, then augmentations to the processing of the network to allow for the simultaneous parsing of and generation of this kind of code may…

I don't think ChatGPT or its successors will be able to do large-scale software development, defined as 'translating complex business requirements into code', but the actual act of programming will become more one of using ML tools to create functions, and writing code to link them together with business logic. It'll still be programming, but it will just start at a higher level, and a single programmer will be vastly more productive.

Which, of course, is what we've always done; modern programming, with its full-featured IDEs, high level languages, and feature-rich third-party libraries is mostly about gluing together things that already exist. We've already abstracted away 99% of programming over the last 40 years or so, allowing a single programmer today to build something in a weekend that would have taken a building full of programmers years to build in the 1980s. The difference is, of course, this is going to happen fairly quickly and bring about an upheaval in the software industry to the detriment of a lot of people.

And of course, this doesn't include the possibility of AGI; I think we're a very long way from that, but once it happens, any job doing anything with information is instantly obsolete forever.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#106

Post by jeffbee »

sakex wrote: post #9

I asked ChatGPT the question I had and it could not answer. (L3 googler.)

Mine was something along the lines of "design google". I am not sure when it became common belief that these interviews amount to leetcode regurgitation. Either that varies greatly by org or I was completely out of step with interviewing culture the whole time I was there.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#107

Post by detrites »

So if we divide the cost of training and running a specifically-tailored ChatGPT by $183k, at what point would the company save money were it to go with the AI, versus paying for the engineers (and their office rent, etc...)?

Because I suspect that's almost certainly the kind of calculation they hoped to sit down and make were they to conclude this experiment successfully.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#108

Post by morelisp »

pixl97 wrote: post #77
morelisp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I think the jury is still out on whether ChatGPT is truly useful or not, passing an L3 hiring test is not evidence of that one way or another.

If it doesn't point out that ChatGPT is useful, especially if its proven it is not, then maybe the hiring tests are not useful.

Well, what it shows is that hiring tests are not useful as Turing tests. But nobody designed them to be or expected them to be! At best it "proves" is that hiring tests are not sufficient. But again, nobody thought they were. And even still, the assumption a human is taking the hiring test still seems reasonable. Why overengineer your process?

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#110

Post by jeffbee »

silveroriole wrote: post #101
jeffbee wrote: post #7

That's odd because when I gave ChatGPT my icebreaker interview question that I used a lot at Google it fell right on its face. And this is a question I expect teenagers to ace in one minute.

Agreed, something is odd about this. A few people have sent me code that ChatGPT has written for them. They don’t have the capability to determine if the code is good so they ask me. If the result is even something that will compile or address the asked problem at all, it’s barely competent nonsense that only a beginner programmer would write. For example asking it for code that will generate recipes, and you get bac…

Exactly. The point of the interview is for two people to have an exchange of thoughts, not for the candidate to literally program the whiteboard. All of my interview feedback on candidates centered around how they asked clarifying questions given incomplete or ambiguous prompts, and how they explained the limitations and assumptions of their approach. Whether or not they reached a conclusion was footnoted.
Post reply on HN