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

331–340 of 348 posts

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

#331

Post by roenxi »

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…

Working out the engineering challenges will probably take a decade extra, but I wouldn't listen to the ML researchers' opinions on this issue; the evidence that they are in the drivers seat is shaky. We're still seeing exponential gains in processing power and we're closing in on order-of-magnitude amounts of processing power being available in silicone as in a human brain. There is a pretty decent chance that there is some magic threshold around there where all these tasks become easy with current algorithms.

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

#332

Post by [deleted] »

cudgy wrote: post #245
nerdchum wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this will probably be a boon to the project manager. It will be another tool and their toolbox along with real developers that they can assign lower complexity tasks too. at least it's till it's capable of doing high complexity stuff.

Project managers are dealing with the high complexity stuff, while the developers are handling the low complexity stuff? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

[deleted]

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

#333

Post by nerdchum »

cudgy wrote: post #245
nerdchum wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this will probably be a boon to the project manager. It will be another tool and their toolbox along with real developers that they can assign lower complexity tasks too. at least it's till it's capable of doing high complexity stuff.

Project managers are dealing with the high complexity stuff, while the developers are handling the low complexity stuff? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

What? What I think is it will be another tool in the project managers toolbox to get the job done.

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

#334

Post by varispeed »

ck2 wrote: post #278

I don't think the realworld use of ChatGPT/like bots is going to be high end jobs. I think it's going to become virtually impossible to chat with a real human being within a few years for almost any customer service. Hundreds of thousands of jobs can be replaced overnight with enough training and just one or two human supervisors at an extreme high level. At first it will be "bot assisted humans" until it learns enou…

> At first it will be "bot assisted humans" until it learns enough, once that database is built everyone will be fired.

On one hand this is great, because customer service jobs are so much waste of human potential. Humans have that great ability to adapt and AI is a manifestation of that. We are growing. Jobs "lost" to AI will prompt humans to advance and look for more sophisticated jobs that make better use of their beautiful brains.

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

#335

Post by snickerer »

nashashmi wrote: post #256
snickerer wrote: post #190

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 obv…

The machine is trained to answer in the same exact way as others have answered the same question. and And this means when others have answered the question that AI will never replace human beings, chat GPT will answer them in the same exact way.

Have you played with it? It can do more. It can do logical reasoning by its own and it come to its own conclusions. That's why ChatGPT is new -- and frightening.

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

#336

Post by devinprater »

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 blue?

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

#337

Post by epistemer »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #159
CommieBobDole wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vastl…

That's my assumption as well - the human programmers will far more productive, but they'll still be required because there's no way we can take the guard rails off and let the AI build - it'll build wrong unit tests for wrong functions which create wrong programs and will require humans to get it back on track.

I think it is really hard to say where all this goes right now when we currently don't even have good quantitative reasoning.

10 years ago we were still working on MNIST prediction accuracy. 10 years forward from here all bets are off. If the model has super human quantitative reasoning and a mastery of language I am not sure how much programming we will be doing compared to moving to a higher level of abstraction.

On the other hand, I think there will be so many new software jobs because of the volume of software built over the next 20 years. The volume of software built over the next 20 years is probably unimaginable sitting where we are.

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

#338

Post by aetherson »

Groxx wrote: post #313
aetherson wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the big revolution of the last few years has been to recognize that we'll likely get robots that can pass the turing test well before we get full self driving vehicles that can run anywhere there are basically ordinary paved roads. I think even three years ago, most people would have thought the reverse. So Kurzweil was imagining the turing test as the capstone to a decade of more and more capable ai products…

The Turing test has always been hazy - I don't think it's something we'll consider "passed" until at least a clear majority consider it passed (if not substantially further). Otherwise you risk claiming ELIZA passed it, because a couple people thought so. Or that one Google employee this time.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say in the last paragraph. The Turing Test was an interesting thought experiment, not, like, an actual test. It's never been very clear how to operationalize it, and it's clear that Turing wasn't imagining how easily you can actively fool people. He was more making a point that we don't have an internal definition of intelligence -- it's not like multiplication where you can examine the underlying process and say, "Well, did it do this correctly?" You can only look at the results.

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

#339

Post by danaris »

anonzzzies wrote: post #253
Retric wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now yes. Hypothetically that may change but the hype is vastly beyond what it’s actually capable of right now.

Ah the HN echo chamber again! Please visit your local non FAAAM (or what it is now?) fortune 1000, pick a senior dev randomly and work with them for week. Chatgpt is vastly better now , today. Faster, does not need sleep, rest, politeness or handholding, can explain itself (sure it’s wrong often but less wrong than the dev you picked while actually being able to use proper syntax and grammar, unlike the dev you picke…

Wait, you think "junior developers are actually moderately competent" only makes sense within the HN echo chamber?

I think you have that exactly backwards.

Most junior developers most places may not have the experience of a senior developer, and thus be able to do the translation from business logic to code quite as fast and accurately the first time, but this kind of derogatory attitude toward them is incredibly condescending and insulting.

ChatGPT doesn't know what it's doing. It doesn't know anything, and unlike the most junior developer barely trained, it can't even check its output to see if it matches the desired output.

And for goodness' sake, get rid of the absurd idea that all the competent developers are in Silicon Valley. That's even more insulting to the vast majority of developers in the entire world.

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

#340

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

brookst wrote: post #291
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my assumption as well - the human programmers will far more productive, but they'll still be required because there's no way we can take the guard rails off and let the AI build - it'll build wrong unit tests for wrong functions which create wrong programs and will require humans to get it back on track.

Is your opinion time bounded to 5 years? 20 years? 100 years? Forever?

I don't think anyone can say what's going to happen in 10 years, but what I do know is if you look back people have been saying programmers will be obsolete in 10 years for way longer than a decade.
Post reply on HN