I told ChatGPT to implement itself. It's a WOW moment for me. It's like i was reborn for next century.
Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
281–290 of 379 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that i can use this tool as a source of inspiration, or a first opinion on any kind of problem on earth is totally incredible. Now whenever i'm stuck on a problem, chatgpt has become an option . And this happens in the artistic world as well with the other branch of NN : "mood boards" can now be generated from prompts infinitely. I don't understand how some engineers still fail to see that a threshold was pa…
I've literally asked it to generate stories from prompts and, it has, without fail, generated the most generic stories I have ever read. High school me could have generated better with little to no effort (and I don't say that lightly) and I'm not a good writer by any means. Moreover, it's first opinion on the things I'm good at has been a special kind of awful. It generates sentences that are true on their face but,…
My experience was more 50% bullshit 50% fact. I did however explicitly forbid members of my team at work to use its code answers for subjects they weren't already experts in.
However I'm not advocating using its answers directly, but more as a source of inspiration.
Now everybody is aware of the problem of chatGPT not "knowing" the difference between facts vs opinion. It does, however seem a less hard features to add than what they've already built (and MS already pretends its own version is able to correctly provide sources). Future will tell if i'm wrong..
Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe I agree. And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes round every decade or so, and people run around like headless chickens insisting that "this time its different", and "this time its the REAL THING". As you say, first(ish) there was ELIZA. Than this that and everything else. Then Autonomy and all that dot-com er…
> And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes round every decade or so, and people run around like headless chickens insisting that "this time its different", and "this time its the REAL THING". This. To answer the OPs question, this is what I'm fatigued about. I'm glad we're making progress. It's a hell of a parlor trick. But the hype around it is astounding considering how often it's answers are completely…
I'm having a really hard time following your argument. But absolutely agree we need to redefine the Turing test. Only problem is that I can no longer come up with any reasonable time-limited cognitive task that next year's AI would fail at, but a "typical human" would pass.
Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you work at a computer, it will increase your productivity. Revolutionary is not the word I'd use, but finding use cases isn't hard.
But will it? After accounting for the time needed to fix all the bugs it introduces?
Humans introduce bugs too. ChatGPT is still new, so it probably makes more mistakes than a human at the moment, but it's only a matter of time until someone creates the first language model that will measurably outperform humans in this regard (and several other important regards).
Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intelligence is a capability not a mechanism, and therefore if you're able/willing to define what that capability is, there should be no problem measuring/gauging the intelligence of any system, biological or not. You don't need to look inside the black box - you only need to test if the black box has this capability. Intelligence may be a fuzzily defined word in everyday usage, but I don't think it's the mystery you…
You and I are clearly referring to two different things when we use the word “intelligence”. It is also not nearly so easy to come up with a simple/mechanical/verifiable definition for the thing that you’re referring to. Unless you have a good definition—in which case, you might want to put your money where your mouth is and get busy revolutionizing multiple fields of human inquiry! It’s also plain that many people a…
People are interested in looking inside the black box (our brain) for sure, partly for inspiration as to how to implement intelligence among other things, but implementing isn't the same as defining.
Being able to define what you want to achieve isn't generally the same as knowing HOW to achieve it (except in this case the definition of intelligence rather does suggest the right path).
Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
It is not about whether or not there's viable use cases or not. It is the hype added on top. Hype cycles are as old as IT. XML, Semantic Web, SOAP, Service Oriented Architecture, Enterprise Service Buses, Big Data, Serverless .. they all got their hype phase where you are bombarded with them to death, and then finally when that dies down some good applications remain.
I don't really understand your argument. Because other tech has been hyped in the past and let you down you think that will therefore extend to AI because...it just will? What precisely links AI to the semantic web or SOAP?
(and it's always about business use cases)
Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
#287Its 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?
> The business cases are pretty obvious
??? What are they?
- bad code, with non obvious bugs? I would prefer the original slashdot/GitHub/blog post. Google used to do that.
- chat bots? The customer service will still be shit. Your problem will still not be solved. But I guess some call center staff can be fired. Customers will be very happy to never be able to speak to a human.
- Writing mediocre overlong content for google to place ads in? Just what the internet needs. It’s already day time tv.
Any more?
Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
#288I'm working on a project that uses GPT-3 and similar stuff, even before the hype. I think the overhype is really tiring. Just like with most of these hype cycles there is an actual useful interesting technology, but the hype beasts take it way overboard and present it as if it's the holy grail or whatever. It's not. That's tiring, and really annoying. It's incredibly cool technology, it is great at certain use cases,…
> Just like with most of these hype cycles there is an actual useful interesting technology, but the hype beasts take it way overboard and present it as if it's the holy grail or whatever. It's not.
See also: Gartner hype cycle
Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe I agree. And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes round every decade or so, and people run around like headless chickens insisting that "this time its different", and "this time its the REAL THING". As you say, first(ish) there was ELIZA. Than this that and everything else. Then Autonomy and all that dot-com er…
> And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes round every decade or so, and people run around like headless chickens insisting that "this time its different", and "this time its the REAL THING". This. To answer the OPs question, this is what I'm fatigued about. I'm glad we're making progress. It's a hell of a parlor trick. But the hype around it is astounding considering how often it's answers are completely…
>>Instead of AI making machines smarter, it seems that computers are making humans dumber. Perhaps the AI revolution is about dropping the level of average human intelligence to match the level of a computer. A mental race to the bottom?
I came here to make this comment. Thank you for doing it for me.
I remember feeling shocked when this article appeared in the Atlantic in 2008, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?": https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-goog...
The existence of the article broke Betteridge's law for me. The fact that this phenomenon it is not more widely discussed describes the limit of human intelligence. Which brings me back around to the other side... perhaps we were never as intelligent as we suspected?
Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do believe if we are going to get AGI without some random revolutionary breakthrough, to achieve it iteratively, It's going to come through language models. Think about it. What's the most expressive medium we have which is also absolutely inundated with data? To broadly be able to predict human speech you need to broadly be able to predict the human mind. To broadly predict a human mind requires you build a model…
> To broadly be able to predict human speech you need to broadly be able to predict the human mind This is a non sequitur. The human mind does a whole lot more than string words together. Being able to predict which word would logically follow another does not require the ability to predict anything other than just that.
I think what the commenter is saying is that, in time, language models too will do a lot more than string words together. If it's large enough, and you train it well enough to respond to “what's the best next move in this chess position?” prompts with good moves, it will inevitably learn chess.