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

CheatGPT

blog.humphd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#121

Post by singularity2001 »

dcow wrote: post #83
beepbooptheory wrote: post #74

Just cracking myself up thinking about 20 years from now where at some startup the sole engineer (prompt engineer?) who has been trying for hours to figure out why their program doesn't work finally gives up and asks the model "what is the difference between 'let' and 'const'?" and getting a mostly verbatim stackoverflow answer back. A beautiful story to me.

What is the difference between `let` and `const`?

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22308071/what-is-the-dif...

The difference between let and const is that once you bind a value/object to a variable using const, you can't reassign to that variable. In other words Example:

const something = {}; something = 1; // Error.

let somethingElse = {}; somethingElse = 100; // This is ok

Re: CheatGPT

#122

Post by nextlevelwizard »

Why should anyone care?

If someone wants to coast they will and it will be reflected later on when they cant get or hold a job since they are just as shit as ChatGPT or copilot

And if they can get and hold an job then isnt that just better?

Re: CheatGPT

#124

Post by hiq »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #43

Cheating in academia isn't a problem, because the only people students are cheating is themselves. I've seen plenty of cheaters, they were the worst students, and despite cheating couldn't graduate or couldn't find a job after graduating. If some moron is stupid enough to cheat when he's paying 50K a year, let them.

> I've seen plenty of cheaters, they were the worst students

In other words, you haven't seen the "cheaters" who were among the best students.

"cheaters" in quotes because it's not clear to me that people using freely available resources when doing homework are really cheaters. If an instructor wants to do a closed-book exam, they can do just that.

Re: CheatGPT

#125

Post by hutzlibu »

rpearl wrote: post #88
hutzlibu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the point of school work is to prepare for life - then you should mainly learn, how to get a job done. And if they want to teach special skills, like writing essays without computerhelp - then you can test that onsite.

The point of writing an essay is not to learn how to produce an essay. It's to learn analytical thinking, research, and argument skills.

Well, as far as I know, that is an special case of an essay. And this you can test onsite.

The kind of essays I had to write in schools were more about nice sounding words and less the content. CheatGPT can produce nice sounding words, so I am hoping that the focus will move towards rewarding content.

Re: CheatGPT

#126

Post by vlunkr »

singularity2001 wrote: post #107

Maybe take the approach many physics classes embrace (in germany) : All tools are allowed in tests: calculators, books, as long as the correct answer is derived with "correct derivation path". If chatgpt makes some problems too easy maybe it's a good thing because we can raise the bar. Find problems that require true understanding beyond auto complete / copy pasting.

This isn’t too different from requiring students to write essays. No one actually needs another essay about Shakespeare or whatever, and ChatGPT could do it for you, but the point of the exercise is to learn to write. It’s the process, not the product that matters.

Re: CheatGPT

#127

Post by josh2600 »

Thorentis wrote: post #113
stillsleepy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the other week i gave chatgpt a simple multiplication problem that it got wrong. very simple problem like 86 * 0.0007 or something. but ive been working with chatgpt for 4-5 weeks now and that wrong answer doesnt make up for all the "good answers" that are usually not perfect. like one day i needed to COALESCE in mysql. i didnt know that, but chatgpt did. theres a few times i would have written a function the complic…

Multiplication problems are not language problems. There is no data in the training set where there is a likely probability of the next token in the "86 * 0.0007 =" sentence being correct. People need to stop treating ChatGPT as a computation engine. It is not wolfram alpha. It is not google. It is fancy autocomplete trained on a large subset of the internet.

For now.

Re: CheatGPT

#129

Post by BarryMilo »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #84
modeless wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What humans being to the table over ChatGPT is Statements like these are premature. ChatGPT is three months old! This is a rapidly advancing field. The capabilities of these models are very likely to be radically different five years from now. Any conclusions drawn now about what value is uniquely human and out of reach for AI may be proven wrong quickly.

Agreed! Anyone not answering with “IDK, but maybe…” is just wasting bandwidth. This Gen1 tech. Most of us are already shocked at how good it is, and it won’t get worse.

You seem confident that it won't get worse, but it's only as good as its training data. Which is the internet. What happens when the internet is filled with generic Gen1 output? I'm doubtful copy averages can ever lead to anything other than increasing mediocrity.
Post reply on HN