Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 379 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#201

Post by weeksie »

wokwokwok wrote: post #152
morelisp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bullshit answer. No, I don't use it daily because I tried it for a couple hours and it suggested nothing useful and several harmful. Why would I keep using it?

[flagged]

I've used it and it did nothing helpful. I also find autocomplete slows me down. The code it suggested always needed enough reworking I would have been faster writing it out from scratch. It's just not that helpful for me. Maybe if I didn't know the apis that well but I suspect even then it would be as much a liability as a benefit

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#202

Post by HereBeBeasties »

nhinck2 wrote: post #164
jvanderbot wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be both bullshit and utterly astounding. In terms of closing the gap between AI hype and useful general purpose AI tools, no one can reasonably deny that it's an absolute quantum leap. It's just not a daily driver for technical experts yet.

> quantum leap Ironically accurate.

In normal English usage, a quantum leap is a step-change, a near-discrete rather than continuous improvement, a large singular advance.

Given we are not talking about state changes in electrons, there is nothing wrong with this description of ChatGPT - it truly does feel like a massive advance to anyone who has even cursorily played with it.

For example, you can ask it questions like "Who was born first, Margaret Thatcher or George Bush?" and "Who was born first, Tony Blair or George Bush?" and in each instance it infers which George Bush you are talking about.

I honestly couldn't imagine something like this being this good only three years ago.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#203

Post by Joker_vD »

brookst wrote: post #142
exegete wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent’s comment is probably referring to the fact if you use Copilot to write code then you have to go through and try to understand what it wrote and possibly debug it. And you don’t have the opportunity to ask it why it wrote it the way it did when reviewing its code.

I think you’re right, but that just means parent doesn’t understand copilot and is off tilting at windmills. Copilot is amazing for reducing the tedium of typing obvious but lengthy code (and strings!). And it’s inline and passive; it’s not like you go edit -> insert -> copilot function and it dumps in 100 lines of code you have to debug. Which is what it sounds like parent is mistaking it for. I’m reminded of 1995,…

> Copilot is amazing for reducing the tedium of typing obvious but lengthy code (and strings!)

Which it occasionally mistypes. Then you're off to chase a small piece of error in a tub of boilerplate. Great stuff! For actual example, see [0]

[0] https://blog.ploeh.dk/2022/12/05/github-copilot-preliminary-...

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#204

Post by barrell »

davibu wrote: post #179

I'm tired of people saying they're tired. I use ChatGPT every day and it provides results of a quality that has little to do with Google, even though I'm aware that it sometimes fibs to me, makes up names for functions that don't exist, or makes mistakes. There's hype, but I think it's much more deserved than the hype around cryptocurrencies

There are plenty of people who live their entire life with bitcoin - they get paid in bitcoin, pay their bills in bitcoin, and send each-other money in bitcoin.

I think it's safe to say your experience is an outlier, just like theirs are.

I'm happy it's working for you, but if you really do use it every day, you surely can understand the points where it doesn't live up to the hype -- or at the very least, how it is not for everyone.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#205

Post by sfpotter »

sfpotter wrote: post #140
Diggsey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake meat is still a form of deception; it's something that's not meat pretending to be meat. If lab grown meat gets good enough to be indistinguishable from "real" meat, then it would no longer be fake, it would just be artificial.

Is “fake grass” (i.e. astroturf) a form of deception in your eyes?

Haha. I give up. :-)

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#206

Post by not_a_shill »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #189

Its the next hype train since the blockchain/crypto/nft's hype train. The crypto train has arrived at its overheated, decentralized set of train stations that all have remnants of fraudsters, high end GPU boxes scattered about, torn up flyers with the promise of untold riches, people scampering about in the shadows muttering "defi" to themselves, people getting carted off in handcuffs. Where will the AI hype train go…

>Its the next hype train since the blockchain/crypto/nft's hype train.

It really isn't. The business use cases even with current tech are pretty obvious. The problem with crypto/blockchain stuff was that it was useless. An emperor with no clothes.

Is there a more legitimate argument for why they're similar other than "hype" or am I missing something?

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#207

Post by leeches »

I would say, at least it’s not as predatory and unethical as crypto, where the people involved are knowingly harming others.

But it seems like the current trendline for “AI” is going to be worse. Why be excited about building tools that will undermine democracy and cast doubt on the authenticity of every single photo, video, and audio clip. Now it can be done cheaply, by anyone. It will become good enough that we cannot believe any form of media. And also make it impossible to determine if the written word is coming from an actual person. This is going to be weaponized against us.

And at the very least, if you think blogspam sucks now, wait until this becomes 99.9999% of all indexed content. It’s going to jam all of our comms with noise.

But hey it looks great on your resume, right?

Maybe I’m too cynical, would love for someone to change my mind. But you are not alone in your unease.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#208

Post by pixl97 »

NobleLie wrote: post #159
BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“It’s just statistics” is an evergreen way to dismiss AI. The problem is you’re also just statistics.

Source for consciousness / intelligence to be "statistics"? I don't think there is any because there is no functional model for what organic intelligence is or how it operates. There are plethora of fascinating attempts / models but only a subset implore that it is solely "statistical". And even if it was statistical, the implementation of the wet system is absolutely not like a gigantic list of vectorized (stripped…

Sources for intelligence to be magic? I mean we know it's complicated but intelligence also spans the smallest creatures on the planet to humans. This points at intelligence being a reduceable problem that is layered. On top of that it's unlikely we need to model nerve behavior to get something intelligence like output.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#209

Post by dmitriid »

wokwokwok wrote: post #152
morelisp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bullshit answer. No, I don't use it daily because I tried it for a couple hours and it suggested nothing useful and several harmful. Why would I keep using it?

[flagged]

> They replace the default autocomplete in a way which largely unnoticeable, but surprisingly effective at complex autocomplete tasks.

I've yet to see it. It's barely above IDEAs autocomplete in the rare cases when it manages to trigger on my code, and it has already been wrong more than once in the few times it did deign to provide autocompletion.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#210

Post by quaestio »

From an engineering perspective ChatGPT makes some ridiculous errors and at times seems to fabricate random guesses. When these are pointed out it simply apologises and says "oh you right", even if it is being fed a lie.

When asked for references it cannot refer to any. Scientifically useless?

Until AI can filter out fact from fiction, it will continue frustrate the technical people who rely on absolute truths keep important systems running smoothly.

Post reply on HN