So, what if we give ChatGPT code of ChatGPT, and ask to improve upon it? If it can do that, we are fucked.
CheatGPT
221–230 of 544 posts
Re: CheatGPT
#222I don't understand how most of the comments here seem to be along the lines of "these interview questions are useless now" or "we need to rethink education, it hasn't kept up". These all seem absurdly myopic to me. What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI. This is not going to make some interview questions obsolete, or give students more tools to cheat with their homework. It…
>What we're seeing is the first instance, still very limited and imperfect, of AGI
absolutely not. language-model text generation is actually about as non-general as it gets -- they are fundamentally incapable of understanding anything at all, ever. they can't do math, work through basic logic problems, or produce any output that isn't just an assumed logical continuation of the input.
Re: CheatGPT
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the rate they give fatally wrong diagnoses and treatment plans today, I wonder if ChatGPT could be actually better for patients.
? ChatGPT doesn't diagnose and isn't a doctor.
Prompt: I cough, have sore throat and a fever of 39C. What is my illness?
ChatGPT: Based on the symptoms you described, it is possible that you have a viral respiratory infection such as the flu (influenza) or a common cold. It's also possible that you have COVID-19, which can cause similar symptoms.
Re: CheatGPT
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and I've been one, and know that time is finite and you have more than one class that demands work on a deadline, along with all the other fun stuff college has that pulls you away from your studies, and the not so fun stuff like part time employment. If you leave the system as it is today, its easy to copy and paste code. If you do something akin to what I proposed, you've eliminated copy and paste, and made ch…
And then someone in the dorm makes a keystroke injector, and everyone goes back to typing their code on their own computer. Ex: https://null-byte.wonderhowto.com/how-to/make-your-own-bad-u...
IT dept can disable loading volumes that aren't the university shared drive for assignment turn in. They can also supply laptops vs desktops with wired keyboards.
Re: CheatGPT
#225So most interview questions like "make a binary tree" are dead. The best interview question that will never die: "What's the weirdest bug you debugged? What made it weird?" For posterity: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/my-hardest-bug-eve...
> "What's the weirdest bug you debugged? What made it weird?" If you can remember, 5-10 years after you solved it.
I would 100% accept that as an answer since it tells me the candidate is not good with subtext, and that's really needed to solve a lot of interesting problems.
After all, if I ask "what's your favorite food you've ever eaten", there's an unspoken implication that it's a food you remember eating. I am not in fact asking you to recall every single food you've ever eaten and choose one...
-
From my comment below since every reply seems to be bent on ignoring the subtext even in a theoretical discussion about picking up subtext...:
Again, the subtext is "interesting example we're going to discuss". If there's one you can't discuss for any reason (doesn't even have to be you forgot: could be an NDA) then it's already excused from the discussion.
An even half-decent interview is not adversarial: just like day to day work, it requires interpreting some level of useful subtext and some level of open communication
-
I mean, you forgot the details so it's not like it's not like you're going to start monologuing if you just touch on it: "You know, there's a real doozy from X years ago where Y but the details escape me, more recently Z happened"
If there are none that you remember that are interesting: "There aren't many interesting bugs, but there was this really interesting product requirement, could we go over that?"
Re: CheatGPT
#226So most interview questions like "make a binary tree" are dead. The best interview question that will never die: "What's the weirdest bug you debugged? What made it weird?" For posterity: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/my-hardest-bug-eve...
Why is itdead? An interview is live, apart from sone kind of sci-fi implant thing, ChatGPT won’t help you cheat your way through a live interview; in fact using ChatGPT on a take home interview test and failing to answer basic questions in an interview may reveal aspects of your character and competence.
Re: CheatGPT
#227What ChatGPT (and its cousins) expose is that the way humans have been taught in most schools - memorizing and regurgitating information - is now a commodity. What humans being to the table over ChatGPT is our ability to create new links between information, aka creativity. Teaching creativity, imo, will require a return to the methods like those of Sophocles and his contemporaries. I would rather this author be writ…
> 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.
> The capabilities of these models are very likely to be radically different five years from now.
This is an article of faith. Specifically, it believes that at some point in the future the current paradigm will result in qualitatively different behaviors than the mimicry these systems (all GPT variants, "Attention is All You Need") currently perform.
Much ado has been made of the previous Symbolic AI researchers "moving the goalposts." In this criticism, it is the old guard of AI who is constantly bemoaning the current state of affairs as not real AI. But there is no actual goalpost moving. They have said it wasn't real AI at the beginning, and they are saying it isn't real AI now. Whether or not the symbolists' model was real AI is irrelevant: when you bake in "this is a rapidly moving field" as a hand-wavy explanation for why this may result in AGI, you are the one implying a moving of the goalposts.
If it ever turns out that these models need to be qualitatively different, then it will be clear that attention is not in fact all you need. In that eventuality, I fully expect the new guard to hem and haw and find some tricky sophistry to explain why they were right all along, despite qualitative shifts unattributable to adding mountains of new data or connectionist trickery.
Re: CheatGPT
#228"i cheated myself like i knew i would"
when students get out of the classroom and face the human economy they will find that nobody pays anything for doing something that can be done at near zero cost by a machine
Re: CheatGPT
#229Perhaps this is another of the early (?) nails in the coffin for traditional higher education. If it becomes harder to assess if someone learned something (with a grade), the results of that assessment (GPA) become less valuable. Software has traditionally been at the forefront of allowing people with non-traditional backgrounds (bootcamps, other degrees, self-taught) to work in the highest echelon of jobs, because o…
I think it just moves the definition of “learning” to a higher level of abstraction: so you know what AI tools to use, how to prompt them, and how to understand their output? I’m reminded of the time when graphing calculators were going to destroy math programs because nobody would “really know” how to do the work. And yet here we are, and math is fine, and calculators are just another tool.
I hear this argument a lot and I think that it's fallacious. Let's go ahead and extend it to another AI tool - in this case let's talk about stable diffusion.
Let's say you teach a class on fine Art and painting, if you allow your students to use stable diffusion for all their drawings, would you make the case that they have learned how to paint?
Likewise you can't really make the case that somebody understands how to do recursion, if all they're capable of doing is typing the following prompt into chat GPT, "change my forloop into a recursive method".
And in my experience going through calculus, the usage of graphing calculators was heavily. We still had to understand how to calculate derivatives and integrals by hand.
Re: CheatGPT
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just assuming the current pace of advancement will continue. Good text and image synthesis were basically impossible 2 years ago, and every time I check up on Github some huge new innovation has come out.
Is there really a basis for such an assumption? Don't returns tend to diminish with effort, rather than increase?
But interest and investment is also increasing exponentially. I've never really seen anything like this before in AI land, even when GANs and such were doing amazing things.