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

221–230 of 348 posts

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

#221

Post by quonn »

lostmsu wrote: post #213
gptgpp wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, there's a difference between the situation with self-driving and with language models. With self-driving, we barely ever saw anything obviously resembling human abilities, but there was a lot of marketing promising more. With language models when GPT-2 came out everyone was still saying it is a "stochastic parrot" and even GPT-3 was one. But now there's ChatGPT, and every single teenager is aware that that tool…

We actually saw a lot resembling human abilities. It just turns out that it‘s not enough to blindly rely on it in all situations and so here we are. And it‘s quite similar with LLMs.

One difference, though, is that it‘s economically not much use to have self-driving if the backup driver has to be in the car or present. While partially automating programming would make it possible to use far less programmers for the same amount of work.

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

#222

Post by class4behavior »

pixl97 wrote: post #93
tukantje wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, yes, that's why when we read programmer forums every engineer says something like "If you want a promotion and more pay move to another company".

Yes? That is an issue with US laws, not how jobs work. Your employer will still need to fill more senior roles.

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

#223

Post by l33t233372 »

qualudeheart wrote: post #182
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would we do that?

How would we do that?

Banning research is just not feasible.

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

#224

Post by lostmsu »

dpedu wrote: post #78

My 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…

The thing is if it were a static language this state is just 1 step away from full-blown programs, as it could see the function does not exist, and ask it to generate the body.

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

#225

Post by margorczynski »

lostmsu wrote: post #218
margorczynski wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, people in general overestimate the skills and input of your average developer where many (even in FAANG) are simply not capable of creating anything more than some simple CRUD or tooling script without explicit guidance. And being good or very good with algorithms and estimating big-O complexity doesn't make you (it can help) a good software engineer.

That's the general issue with AI skeptics. Most of them, especially highly educated ones, overestimate capabilities of common folk. Frankly, some even overestimate their own. E.g. almost none of them seem to be bothered that while GPT might not provide expert answers in their field, the same GPT is much more capable in other fields than they are (e.g. the "general" part in the "General Artificial Intelligence").

True, the thing is there's nothing like "General Artificial Intelligence" and humans are expert systems optimized to the goal of survival, which in turn gets chopped up into a plethora of sub-goal optimization from which most probably the "general" adjective pops up. It doesn't really matter if it's "general" as long as it actually is useful. It doesn't have to write whole systems from scratch, just making the average dev 20-30% faster is huge.

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

#226

Post by lostmsu »

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

> 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

No, all they are proving is that either tests are bullshit constructs, or ChatGPT is human-level.

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

#227

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

hacym wrote: post #220
SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...what? I'm so confused.

It’s really very easy to understand. When someone gives you the same crap back that you just got done giving someone, you don’t like it and act like that shouldn’t happen.

Did I say I didn't "like" (I'd use the word "appreciate") it, or that I didn't think it should happen? If so, could you please highlight where?

I just see, in what you're doing, a wild lack of self awareness. You're criticizing me for doing to someone else a milder version of what you're trying to do to me now; I'm genuinely confused how you can't see that, or how you could possibly stand the hypocrisy if you do understand that.

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

#228

Post by scarface74 »

sorry_outta_gas wrote: post #96
tukantje wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

really? I just hire them to do the grunt work and tedious shit

Exactly and ChatGPT does that well.

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

#229

Post by lostmsu »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #149

As much as we like to say lots of software jobs are just plumbing, the current state of consumer software indicates we have a long way to go in terms of quality. Whatever training data is fed to an AI will not be better than the data used by human engineers to write code at the macro level. Ergo, the code will be worse in quality.

> Whatever training data is fed to an AI will not be better than the data used by human engineers to write code at the macro level. Ergo, the code will be worse in quality.

No, that's wrong, generally speaking. There's successful work on self-play for text generation. E.g. you can have AI to generate 1000 answers, then to evaluate quality of all of them, then to make it learn the best, and so on. As with self-play in player-vs-player games I'd expect this technique to be able to achieve superhuman results.

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

#230

Post by jsnell »

jeffbee wrote: post #106
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.

Coding / algorithm interviews are distinct from systems design interviews. The interviewer would have been told which of the two to do. If your question was "design google", it sounds like you were only being scheduled for systems design.

(Anyway, you'd never ask a system design question from an L3, and only very rarely from an L4.)

Post reply on HN