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

281–290 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#281

Post by dinkumthinkum »

agrippanux wrote: post #37

What 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…

I think that is poppycock. If you don’t know anything then how can you bring all this “creativity” to bear on a task of knowledge work? This whole line that all of higher education is just regurgitation or something of no value seems fallacious. What is an example of not regurgitation? Why is it that using Wikipedia or whatever is superior learning to what is done in university?

Re: CheatGPT

#282

Post by hathawsh »

josephg wrote: post #268
alex_sf wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the first and the third aren't great. So, 33% chance of being boned.

One weird thing about ChatGPT is that it consistently feels like a B+ student, at everything you ask it. Its never top of the class, but its answers seem skilled enough to get by. I've seen this asking about my own field (CRDTs), asking it to write comedy sketches, and with some of the academics I know asking it the sort of essay students they'd ask their students. I wonder if its somehow doing this on purpose - like…

The quality of its answers improve significantly when you give it feedback and ask it to revise. It's eerie!

Re: CheatGPT

#283

Post by stuckinhell »

throw310822 wrote: post #209

I 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…

I agree 1000000%. Watching all the ART AI's change so radically fast, Watching ChatGPT being adopted by so many people at my company. Watching people say art will shift to prompt engineering, then watching prompt engineering being automated away already! Watching the rise of stable diffusion tooling like invokeai, controlnet, and more. Watching youtube videos of people integrating openai and stable diffusion together. Hearing my old university has created an emergency council to deal with AI and its implications on education and students. Seeing artists on twitter say their commissions have dropped dramatically. Hearing stories that 4channers have been trying to steal Anime creation AI's. Reading articles that chatgpt passed Wharton MBA tests, and various Lawyer tests. An article on hackernews TODAY talks about running this giant models on a home pc!

The speed of AI adoption with its immediate practical usefulness and watching the the speed of innovation around only increase faster than ever makes me nervous extremely nervous about the future, extremely nervous.

This is a global paradigm shift.

Re: CheatGPT

#284

Post by iameli »

kurisufag wrote: post #222
throw310822 wrote: post #209

I 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.

People seem so convinced of this and I just don't get it. I'm seeing this comment through my eyeballs, generating some pertinent text in my brain, and outputting it back out. But so many people seem convinced convinced this process is something radically, fundamentally, irreducibly different than what ChatGPT is doing internally, and I don't get why.

Is it because I have a consciousness with an internal narrative and ChatGPT does not? Because that seems like more of a result of how we've wired up ChatGPT to operate than a fundamental structural difference; nothing stopping us from making ChatGPT talk to itself in its brain to generate synthesis.

Re: CheatGPT

#285

Post by dinkumthinkum »

abernard1 wrote: post #227
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.

> 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 "mo…

This is actually very accurate.

Re: CheatGPT

#286

Post by hgsgm »

Swizec wrote: post #212
epicureanideal wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What's the weirdest bug you debugged? What made it weird?" If you can remember, 5-10 years after you solved it.

Can’t have been that good a bug, if you can’t. Been close to 15 years since some of the horror stories I can tell. Hell, over 20 years for some of my favorite lessons. edit: Point is the good shit stays. You’ll remember the best stories, fear not.

When you get older, other memories crowd out specific bugs.

Memory is associative. The father you are from the bug, the harder it is to remember.

More importantly, you don't need to remember your own bugs, you can get a story from the Internet or ChatGPT.

Re: CheatGPT

#287

Post by dinkumthinkum »

asdff wrote: post #166
agrippanux wrote: post #37

What 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…

I went to uni 10 years ago and even then, I can't think of any classes that were just memorizing and regurgitating. You'd have to memorize fundamental concepts, but come exam time you are applying those concepts to new questions, not regurgitating anything. In high school a lot of exams were regurgitation, but I attribute it to teachers at that level just not having the niche experience required to craft clever "appl…

I think the problem with what you’re saying is that you are not mindlessly agreeing with some straw man, overly reductionist view of what higher education is that seems to be majority view.

Re: CheatGPT

#288

Post by babyshake »

jacobjjacob wrote: post #279
throw310822 wrote: post #209

I 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…

I think what an LLM is best at is fooling people into thinking it’s intelligent. It is really good at saying things in a natural sounding way, and statistically often getting it right, because certain strings of tokens are encoded. But it’s clear when you start poking that it just as easily tells you that 5/2=3, or that 2+2 != 4. it doesn’t model math or any sort of knowledge at all.

Something that I don't quite understand is why the tendency of ChatGPT to be inaccurate sometimes is a fundamental flaw rather than something that can be improved on iteratively if its just a matter of improving the statistical likelihood of accuracy. The question of whether its AGI or not is, to paraphrase the famous quote, a bit like the question of whether a submarine can swim.

Re: CheatGPT

#289

Post by sanderjd »

josh2600 wrote: post #123

So 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...

In my last round of interviews, by far my favorite session was "here is a real project with a real bug, debug it, then if you have time, describe how to fix it, then if you have time, write the fix". (At Stripe FWIW.)

It was super representative of what my work is actually like, and what I'm good at, and ChatGPT would not have figured it out.

yet

Re: CheatGPT

#290

Post by hgsgm »

BoorishBears wrote: post #278
neilv wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would 100% accept that as an answer since it tells me the candidate is not good with subtext, [...] 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. Will this filter cut many of the best engineers? Our field is full of people who pull 'engineering' out of our behinds, to various degrees. I'd assert that the engineer who doesn't assume an…

> Will this filter cut many of the best engineers? It won't cut out a single good engineer, let alone the best. > I'd assert that the engineer who doesn't assume an unspoken implication, but instead qualifies their answer, or tells you when they cannot answer, or asks for clarification... is more likely to be the one who can make a system that works, and tell you when a system will not work. You grouped the one optio…

My organization values technical correctness.
Post reply on HN