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

381–390 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#381

Post by guy98238710 »

Aperocky wrote: post #344
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…

This take is widely prevalent in every single ChatGPT discussion. I'll quote myself for discussion for a previous article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746348 > I've find two groups of people on this subject, first one has taken a graduate level stat course and/or ML course, and may have work experience in machine learning/data science. The latter camp is more numerous and did not do those things. > The lat…

AGI is defined as human-level performance across wide variety of tasks. ChatGPT achieves that. It's somewhat stupid and limited (no vision, hearing, manipulation), but still, in principle, it's AGI.

Re: CheatGPT

#382

Post by cheeze »

Aperocky wrote: post #344
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…

This take is widely prevalent in every single ChatGPT discussion. I'll quote myself for discussion for a previous article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746348 > I've find two groups of people on this subject, first one has taken a graduate level stat course and/or ML course, and may have work experience in machine learning/data science. The latter camp is more numerous and did not do those things. > The lat…

The big question I'd ask is "do we need AGI?"

Surely an LLM could take over the ordering flow at say, Jack in the Box today. That's gotta be true for a lot of different situations.

Re: CheatGPT

#383

Post by dinkumthinkum »

kerpotgh wrote: post #96
ttul wrote: post #90

The best counter to ChatGPT cheating that I’ve heard of is to get students to orally defend their assignments in class. No computer is going to come to your rescue when you have to explain why you wrote the code you wrote. Encourage the use of ChatGPT and other tools. Put the emphasis on understanding what the code does and why. The tool may help to explain this to the student, but if so, that’s fantastic. No need to…

There isn’t any time for this in a 500 person public university classroom.

Do it randomly and make the penalties for cheating severe. Why is it CS people suddenly have no solutions for solvable problems?

Re: CheatGPT

#384

Post by abernard1 »

modeless wrote: post #369
abernard1 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> connectionist trickery I don't know, man, you kind of come off as having a chip on your shoulder about this. I'm not predicting AGI specifically here, and I'm not making any argument about symbolic vs connectionist AI at all. Maybe the model of the future is half symbolic! I'm just saying that asserting that you know exactly which things AI models aren't going to be able to do is pretty foolish at this point.

> know exactly what these models aren't going to be able to do is pretty foolish at this point

This can be said about absolutely any new technology but it does not make it true. It's simply the inscrutability of these tensors that allow people to imagine the intelligence is in there somewhere. The original comment was what humans "bring to the table" over ChatGPT specifically. And that's that they have real intelligence and not memorization.

As others have said, these models have been around for many years. Their core innovation is to add more and more data to them like a dictionary and compress those basis functions in the network architecture. This memorization has a limit and is actually the opposite of intelligence. Intelligence or creativity can do more with less information. As per the original comment, this is what human intelligence and creativity is (currently) superior at and what people should prioritize if they don't want to be replaced.

Re: CheatGPT

#386

Post by jfk13 »

javierluraschi wrote: post #328
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.

Me to ChatGPT: reply to this interview question "What's the weirdest bug you debugged? What made it weird?" in first-person, make it a personal story. ChatGPT: It was early on in my career as a software developer, and I was working on a web application that was designed to allow users to upload images and apply filters to them. One day, a user reported a strange issue where some of the filters were producing unexpect…

The C++ experts here will be able to confirm, but if my memory serves, I think the story about virtual destructors doesn't make sense:

> Specifically, the class had a virtual destructor, but the derived class failed to declare its own destructor as virtual.

The derived class doesn't have to declare its destructor as virtual. What matters is that the base class does so.

> This led to undefined behavior when deleting objects of the derived class, which in turn caused the program to crash.

No; the undefined-behavior case arises if the base class destructor is not declared as virtual, and you then try to delete a derived class via a pointer-to-base.[1]

So this is a nice example of ChatGPT producing something that looks plausible, yet on examination, betrays the fact that it has no actual "understanding" of the topic.

[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/destructor

Re: CheatGPT

#387

Post by ruszki »

JohnFen wrote: post #333
zeckalpha wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to where the thinking happens in a human?

Nope. But I don't have to do that to understand that LLMs do not assess truth or accuracy of anything.

We don’t have any proof of that, as we don’t have proof also about its opposite. We have no idea why neural nets work, or how our brain works in context of this. There is definitely something human-like in neural networks, but we don’t have any idea why, and what exactly. It’s a completely empirical field and not a theoretical one. We don’t have any good idea what would happen if we could built a 180 billion neuron large neural net, because there is no theory which would prove what would happen even the current ones. That’s why I’ve seen almost every single prediction about what AI would solve in the following years in the past 40 years fail. We have no clue.

Re: CheatGPT

#388

Post by Aperocky »

guy98238710 wrote: post #381
Aperocky wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This take is widely prevalent in every single ChatGPT discussion. I'll quote myself for discussion for a previous article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34746348 > I've find two groups of people on this subject, first one has taken a graduate level stat course and/or ML course, and may have work experience in machine learning/data science. The latter camp is more numerous and did not do those things. > The lat…

AGI is defined as human-level performance across wide variety of tasks. ChatGPT achieves that. It's somewhat stupid and limited (no vision, hearing, manipulation), but still, in principle, it's AGI.

I don't want to argue about the semantics or definition of AGI, since that is a rabbit hole that I don't believe contribute anything to the subjective danger that people are feeling.

The only thing I want to say about ChatGPT and other LLM model is that they don't know what they are doing. Give me something that knows what its doing, and perhaps more importantly, what it wants to do. Then I'll acknowledge my personal obsolescence, if not at that point then in quick succession, but until then.

Re: CheatGPT

#389

Post by [deleted] »

JohnFen wrote: post #310
iameli wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's because whatever you and I are doing, it's not simply statistical analysis. That is all that ChatGPT is doing. It may be possible to create a machine that flirts with actual intelligence, but this is simply not it. There's not even room for doubt about this.

[deleted]

Re: CheatGPT

#390

Post by petilon »

JohnFen wrote: post #317
adastra22 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually used any of these products? GPT et al are perfectly capable of taking knowledge from any one domain and applying it towards the solution of any other problem domain, through various kinds of data abstraction, reasoning by analogy, and other techniques similar to what humans do. It makes plenty of goofups along the way, just like humans do. But if your requirement is that it performs absolutely perfe…

> through various kinds of data abstraction, reasoning by analogy, and other techniques similar to what humans do. No, that's exactly not how LLMs work. They are extremely good at predicting what sentences resemble the sentences in their training data and creating those. That's all. People are getting tripped up because they are seeing legitimate intelligence in the output from these systems -- but that intelligence…

I see a lot of comments along the lines of "it's just predicting the next word".

But there's evidence that's what humans do as well:

"In the last few decades, there has been an increased interest in the role of prediction in language comprehension. The idea that people predict (i.e., context-based pre-activation of upcoming linguistic input) was deemed controversial at first. However, present-day theories of language comprehension have embraced linguistic prediction as the main reason why language processing tends to be so effortless, accurate, and efficient."

https://www.psycholinguistics.com/gerry_altmann/research/pap...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23273798.2020.18...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009...

Post reply on HN