ChatGPT should have ghosted the person asking afterwards to fully simulate the Google interview experience.
Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
171–180 of 348 posts
Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
#172I 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…
Why are you making these assumptions? Do you believe that human intelligence is based on something ethereal that cannot be recreated by machines, and if so, why?
I look at self driving cars. You can see that the break throughs are slowing. It feels like many things in life where 80% is relatively fast to develop but as you get closer to 100% it starts to get exponential hard. With cars we've gotten through the easy part. The next x% is going to very hard if not impossible. I think all AI will be that way.The last x% is going to be hard if not impossible.
Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
#173I think ChatGPT could excel as a bullshit detector.. If ChatGPT can pass your college course or interview process then you seriously need to examine that process, and make it less bullshit-focused and more pragmatic.
Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until ChatGPT can slack my PM, attend my sprint plannings, read my Jira tickets, and synthesize all of this into actionable tasks on my codebase, I think we have job security. To be clear, we are starting to see this capability on the horizon.
The capability will be available in around two weeks once RLHF alignment with the software engineering tasks is completed. The deployment will take take around twelve hours, most of it taken by human review of you and your manager of the integration summary pages. You can keep your job, supervise and review how your role is being played for the following 6 months, until the human supervision role is deemed unnecessar…
Are you referring to that article about the OpenAI contractors? Are they being used to work on RLHF?
Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you want Y, which is novel or rarely used, the quality of the answers varies. Is this any really different than asking a group of humans about the novel and measuring the quality?
Couple differences: 1. Humans aren’t entirely probabilistic, they are able to recognize and admit when they don’t know something and can employ reasoning and information retrieval. We also apply sanity checks to our output, which as of yet has not been implemented in an LLM. As an example in the medical field, it is common to say “I don’t know” and refer to an expert or check resources as appropriate. In their curren…
>. Humans aren’t entirely probabilistic, they are able to recognize and admit when they don’t know something
Humans can be taught this. They can also be taught the opposite that not knowing something or that changing your mind is bad. Just observe the behavior of some politicians.
>Humans use more than language to learn and understand in the real world.
And this I completely agree with. There is a body/mind feedback loop that AI will, be limited by not having, at least for some time. I don't think LLMs are a general intelligence, at least for how we define intelligence at this point. AGI will have to include instrumentation to interact with and get feedback from the reality it exists in to cross partial intelligence to at or above human intelligence level. Simply put our interaction with the physics of reality cuts out a lot of the bullshit that can exist in a simulated model.
Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, what is the problem with that? They engaged dishonestly by claiming they didn't understand something, why should I do anything other than call them on that?
OK — just don’t be surprised when people think you’re being a jerk because you didn’t like the words someone chose. I’d assert you’re acting in bad faith more than the person you responded to.
I just... how is what you're doing here different from what I was saying, other than you're explicitly calling me names?
Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
#177I 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…
Why do you think an AI Winter is coming? In the last year we witnessed a BIG BANG of AI solutions. I think your expectations are in line with my hopes: That our state of the art "AI" performance is very close to local minima that we won't escape from for quite a while. I really don't want lose my overpaid job gluing together overengineered shite into CRUD applications.
"Experts have predicted 150 of the last 2 AI winters"
Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
#178Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
#179Will 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.
I was asking myself the same when web search-engines came out...
Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees
#180My experience with asking ChatGPT to write code is that is produces code that LOOKS like it will work and solve the question asked but it actually doesn't. For example, I've asked it to create code examples of how to use different features in some Python libraries. The samples it produces make me think "ok, that's exactly how I would expect X feature in this library to work", but upon more a detailed inspection, I fi…
Not unlike a junior engineer! :)