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

131–140 of 348 posts

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

#131

Post by fdgsdfogijq »

soulofmischief wrote: post #103
ghaff wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah its coming, improvements in these language models coupled with convincing AR will change the world. A full conversation with a computer that might be as engaging as with a human

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

#132

Post by kyriakos »

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 is not blue btw

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

#134

Post by skellera »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #62

I think tests should be easy for ChatGPT to pass. It has been trained on data that has the answers and it's good at getting the data. I'm starting to doubt its long term usefulness since it does not seem to have good decision making abilities and even the slightest bit of cognitive ability. I suspect the current crop of AIs will find very specific functions and hit a hard stop. They will change how we function but we…

Doesn’t have to replace an SWE. 10x-ing the ability of 1 engineer is a good enough win. Soon that will be 20-100x.

Feels odd to dismiss such a huge breakthrough by saying it’s still not as good as the pinnacle of AI (general AI). Just because the Apple 2 wasn’t a home super computer, didn’t make it less revolutionary.

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

#135

Post by wadd1e »

somsak2 wrote: post #100
nzoschke wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree LeetCode is one of the least surprising starting points. Any human that reads the LeetCode books and practices and remembers the fundamentals will pass a LeetCode test. But there is also a ton of code out there for highly scalable client/servers, low latency processing, performance optimizations and bug fixing. Certainly GPT it is being trained on this too. “Find a kernel bug from first principles” maybe not, b…

> Any human that reads the LeetCode books and practices and remembers the fundamentals will pass a LeetCode test. Seems pretty bold to claim "any human" to me. If it were that easy, don't you think alot more people would be able to break into software dev at FAANG and hence drive salaries down?

I don't think the person you're replying meant "Any human" to be taken literally, but I agree with their notion. I think you're confusing wanting to do something and having the ability to do it. Enough people don't WANT to grind leetcode and break into FAANG, or they think they can't do it or there's other barriers that I can't think of, but I think you don't need above average cognitive ability to learn and grind leetcode.

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

#136

Post by gptgpp »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #94
tbalsam wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. Define "we". There are all kinds of people with all kinds of opinions. I didn't notice any consensus on the questions of AI. There are people with all kinds of educations and backgrounds on the opposite sides and in-between.

I mean, you can just as easily make the claim that researchers shift goalposts as a "self-defense" mechanism.

For example...

Hows that self-driving going? Got all those edge-cases ironed out yet?

Oh, by next year? Wierd, that sounds very familiar...

Remember about Tesla's autopilot was released 9 years ago, and the media began similar speculation about how all of the truckers were going to get automated out of a job by AI? And then further speculation about how Taxi drivers were all going to be obsolete?

Those workers are the ones shifting the goal posts though as a "self-defense mechanism", sure, sure... lol.

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

#137

Post by echelon »

ericmcer wrote: post #63
echelon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rest of us aren't going to care that much. If you don't adapt, you'll be out of a job in ten years. Maybe sooner. Or maybe your salary will drop to $50k/yr because anyone will be able to glue together engineering modules. I say this as an engineer that solved "hard problems" like building distributed, high throughput, active/active systems; bespoke consensus protocols; real time optics and photogrammetry; etc.…

You really think in <10 years AI will be able to take a loose problem like: "our file uploader is slow" and write code that fixes the issue in a way that doesn't compromise maintainability? And be trustworthy enough to do it 100% of the time?

Think banking Cobol and FORTRAN.

Non-AI code will be a liability in a world where more code will be generated by computers (or with computer assistance) per year than all human engineered code in the last century.

We'll develop architectures and languages that are more machine friendly. ASTs and data stores that are first class primitives for AI.

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

#138

Post by scarface74 »

tukantje wrote: post #40
ALittleLight wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a huge demonstration of progress. Shrugging it off as "water is blue" ignores the fact that a year ago this wouldn't have been possible. At one end of the "programmer" scale is hacking basic programs together by copying off of stack overflow and similar - call that 0. At the other end is the senior/principal software architect - designing scalable systems to address business needs, documenting the com…

We don’t get junior engineers for solving problems we tend to get them because they grow into other roles.

That’s a very unrealistic take.

Here is what usually happens.

You hire a junior dev at $x. Let’s say $75K. They stay for a couple of years and start out doing “negative work”. By the time they get useful and start asking for $100K, your HR department tells you that they can’t give them a 33% raise.

Your former junior dev then looks for another job that will pay them what they are asking for and the next company doesn’t have to waste time or risk getting an unproven dev.

While your company is hiring people with his same skill level at market price - ie “salary compression and inversion”.

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

#139

Post by pixl97 »

6c737133 wrote: post #2

why does chatGPT passing tests or interviews continue to make headlines? all they're proving is that tests, and interviews, are bullshit constructs that merely attempt to evaluate someone's ability to retain and regurgitate information

And this is the AI effect in practice. We are past the point where the original idea of the Turing test has been met by machine intelligence. We are at that point.

The problem with people is we keep pushing it to "Only AGI/machine superintelligence is good enough". We are getting models that behave closer to human level. The 'doesn't know everything, is good at somethings, and bullshits pretty well'. Yea, that's the average person. Instead we raise the bar and go 'well it needs to be a domain expert in all expert system' and that absolutely terrifies me that it will get to that stage before humanity is ready for it. This is not going to work well trying to deal with it after the fact.

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

#140

Post by qzw »

tedivm wrote: post #61
tbalsam wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've worked in ML for awhile (on the MLOps side of things) and have been in the industry for a bit, and one thing that I think is extremely common is for ML researchers to grossly underestimate the amount of work needed to make improvements. We've been a year away from full self driving cars for the last six years, and it seems like people are getting more cautious in their timing around that instead of getting more…

In other words, they’ll embrace, extend, and extinguish. Man, these AIs really are just regurgitating their training set!
Post reply on HN