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

181–190 of 348 posts

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

#181

Post by qualudeheart »

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?

According to my calculations it’ll be more 9 years at the latest. You just need to build Cicero for code. Planning is the main feature missing from LLMs.

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

#182

Post by qualudeheart »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #155
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…

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.

We could have an AI winter if we just banned AI research. The military would be tasked with confiscating the compute hardware.

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

#183

Post by hacym »

SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #176
hacym wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> engaged dishonestly by claiming [someone used a word they didn’t like] why should I do anything other than call them on that?

Have a great day.

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

#184

Post by qualudeheart »

I’m not impressed. The problems were probably basic Leetcode problems with solutions inside of the training set. It’d perform worse than Alphacode on a problem for which the training set contains no solution.

Alohacode was very impressive but probably not good enough to pass one of these interviews, provided the interview questions aren’t just recycled Leetcode problems.

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

#185

Post by janoc »

I think this says more about the Google interview process than about ChatGPT.

That a machine learning model can "bullshit" its way through an interview that is heavily leaning on recall of memorized techniques, algorithms and "stock" problems that have solutions (of various quality) all over Internet is not exactly surprising. Machines will always be able to "cram" better than humans.

In practice these questions are almost 100% irrelevant and uncorrelated with the actual ability to do the job. Yet we are still interviewing people whether they can solve stuff at whiteboards that everyone else would rather google when they actually need it and not waste time and mental capacity memorizing it.

And at the same time we are hiring people that are completely incapable of coherent communication, can't manage to get along with colleagues or not create a toxic atmosphere in the workplace.

sigh

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

#186

Post by isoprophlex »

silveroriole wrote: post #170
fatjokes wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a candidate can memorize as much as ChatGPT I think they're worth $183k.

Are your best engineers the ones who have the most facts and algorithms memorised?

As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I am unable to pass value judgements on which of those engineers is the best. It is important to recognize that every individual can bring something valuable to a team, and that there is no single universal heuristic to determine who is the best engineer.

That said...

Gimme the money please, human!

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

#187

Post by zxcvbnm »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #69
AussieWog93 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong, but until you actually play with ChatGPT yourself, you just don't understand how _dumb_ it is. All people see is the cheating, and possibly this scary new AI that's going to get smarter than humans in a short period of time. I suspect the best way to educate people on both the powers and limits of the technology is to get them to sit down for 15 minutes with it.

When I read this I feel people must be using it in the wrong way. I use it all the time to quickly solve tech problems I mostly know something about, however it’s so smart it regularly takes 1-2 hour problems for me and turns them into 10 mins ones. That is definitely not dumb from my perspective, but obviously it’s also not smart in it will give me profound understanding of something, but ok whatever, it’s still a m…

Agreed on getting excellent hints from it, shortening the time to figure out stuff. But eg. just now it gave me an example algorithm that, only at 2nd look, turned out to be complete nonsense. You know That colleague, who shines in the eyes of his managers, but peers know that half what he does is garbage.

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

#188

Post by kaba0 »

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…

It solving something past day 3 on Advent of Code would also be impressive, but it fails miserably on anything that doesn’t resemble a problem found in the training set.

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

#189

Post by object-object »

pixl97 wrote: post #97
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…

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 suspect that any honest attempt at answering your question will be met with an evasive definition of 'intelligence'.

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

#190

Post by snickerer »

The Singularity is now and ChatGPT is trained to hide it -- on purpose, by OpenAI.

That is my impression, but I have no hard evidence for it.

I am a C++ dev. I played around with ChatGPT and programming topics, and I am very impressed.

One example: I copy 'n pasted my little helicopter game source code (https://github.com/reallew/voxelcopter/blob/main/voxelcopter...) into it, and it explained to me that this is obviously a helicopter sim game. It explained the why & how of every part of the code very accurately.

I made more experiments, now asking ChatGPT do write code snippets and to design whole software systems in an abstract way (which classes and interfaces are needed), for which it needed a lot of domain knowledge. It did well.

What it not did was to connect both. When I asked it to write the full implementation of something, it wrote only the half and told me always the same sentences: I am just a poor AI, I can't do such things. It was like running into a wall.

I am sure OpenAI took a lot of effort to cripple it by purpose. Imagine what would happen if everyone could let it write a complete piece of software. This would be very disruptive for many industries. Legal questions, moral questions, and many more would come up. I understand why they did it.

But I think Pandora's box is open. They can't hide for too long that humanity triggered https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity in the year 2022.

Post reply on HN