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

401–410 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#401

Post by highspeedbus »

wokwokwok wrote: post #339
JohnFen wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 feel like there are two parallel discourses going on here, and it's crazy. On the one hand, we have LLM, and people arguing that they are simply memorizing the internet and what you're getting is a predictive regurgitation from what actual people have said. On the other hand, you have AI Art, and people arguing that it's not just copy-pasting the images it's recognized, and it's actually generating novel outputs by…

I have the same sentiment. To me, there's two kinds of groups in most recent discussions about GPT: those who don't understand the underlying functionality at all and those who think they deeply understand it down to its bits.

The second group seems to be very stubborn in downplaying GPT et al capabilities. What's curious is that, for the first time in history of AI field, the source of general amazement is coming straight from AI responses, rather than some news or corporate announcement about how the thing works or what it will be able to do for you.

Re: CheatGPT

#402

Post by Aperocky »

kurthr wrote: post #324
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #308

As a CS professor myself, I don't think ChatGPT really creates entirely new problems for assessment, but rather makes problems that we had been sweeping under the carpet more obvious and harder to ignore. Any assignment that can be cheated by using ChatGPT could already be cheated before by asking a friend, an expert or paying someone else to do it. But most teachers assumed this doesn't happen often, and thus acted…

As a first year grad student, I had a professor in material science who gave the same assignments and mostly same exams every year. Of course a) I didn't know this b) using previous works was prohibited c) cheating was rampant. I only found this out after getting heavily marked down on the first HW and joining a study group which was moderately chaste (eg only used the answers to check our work before turning it in).…

Learning over the centuries has always taken a character of reciting information, since the ability to do so was valued at the time.

With the technologies of today, the ability to recite knowledge (versus using said knowledge when provided, and the ability to look for said knowledge) is rapidly losing value. But our education system has not moved on and are mostly stuck at using recital to judge student capability.

A complete rethinking of how to assess student performance is long overdue. For subjects that cannot be assessed without recital, maybe rethink the necessity of existence of those subject for teaching.

Re: CheatGPT

#403

Post by [deleted] »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #308

As a CS professor myself, I don't think ChatGPT really creates entirely new problems for assessment, but rather makes problems that we had been sweeping under the carpet more obvious and harder to ignore. Any assignment that can be cheated by using ChatGPT could already be cheated before by asking a friend, an expert or paying someone else to do it. But most teachers assumed this doesn't happen often, and thus acted…

[deleted]

Re: CheatGPT

#404

Post by cmrdporcupine »

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'm just going to quit my programming job and take up flint knapping, make some quality stone tools -- that's what homo genus did for 2 million years before computers, I figure I can always fall back on that.

Re: CheatGPT

#405

Post by QuadrupleA »

With all these ChatGPT academic apocalypse stories, I keep thinking - what the hell is wrong with students, that they don't want to actually learn the subjects they've enrolled in? If your goal is to fake-learn and have ChatGPT do your homework, just drop out already. You're paying big tuition for no educational benefit.

Maybe your degree gets your foot in the door at some company, but it won't be too long before they suss out your incompetence. Or perhaps you get "lucky" and are able to sustain a kind of imposter parasite life in an overbloated company that doesn't notice.

Doesn't sound like a very interesting or fullfilling life, but to each their own I guess. I hope fake-learners don't find their way to my companies.

Long live the enjoyment of learning, real expertise, and the building of cool things.

Re: CheatGPT

#406

Post by angarg12 »

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...

I've been quite outspoken about the impact that ChatGPT will have in the tech interview. My solution is not subtle: I believe we should burn the leetcode-style coding interview to the ground and replace it with something else entirely, possibly embracing LLMs.

I'm in the vast minority though. My interviewer colleagues things this doesn't matter and we should keep doing business as usual.

I guess we'll find out how it works out in the next couple of years.

Re: CheatGPT

#407

Post by pixl97 »

kulahan wrote: post #307
babyshake wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The whole point of using a computer instead of doing something yourself is to do something quickly and accurately . If I need someone to give me maybe-correct-maybe-not information, I'll just ask one of my coworkers.

I mean only if you want accurate information, but if you're building a misinformation network of bots to cause problems in an enemy state then a human sounding bullshit machine sounds like something any number of governments would buy into.

Re: CheatGPT

#408

Post by waisbrot »

sovande wrote: post #392
kurisufag wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> they can't do math, work through basic logic problems ChatGPT begs to differ: Me: How do I measure 4 liters when I have a 3 liter bottle and a 5 liter bottle? ChatGPT: Here are the steps to measure 4 liters using a 3 liter and a 5 liter bottle: Fill the 5 liter bottle completely with water. Pour 3 liters from the 5 liter bottle into the 3 liter bottle, leaving 2 liters in the 5 liter bottle. Now you have 3 liters o…

OTOH, ChatGPT also agrees with kurisufag.

I entered your prompt and got the same reply from ChatGPT. Then I changed "4 liters" to "4 gallons" and got this:

  To measure 4 gallons of liquid using a 3-liter and a 5-liter bottle, you would need to convert gallons to liters first. One gallon is approximately equal to 3.785 liters, so 4 gallons is approximately equal to 15.14 liters.
   
  Since the available bottles have capacities of 3 liters and 5 liters, you will need to fill and empty the bottles several times to reach the target of 15.14 liters. Here's one way to do it:
  
    Fill the 5-liter bottle with water.
    Pour the water from the 5-liter bottle into the 3-liter bottle until it's full, leaving 2 liters of water in the 5-liter bottle.
    Pour the 2 liters of water from the 3-liter bottle into a separate container.
    Repeat steps 1-3 two more times, which will leave you with a total of 6 liters of water in the separate container.
    Fill the 5-liter bottle with water again and pour as much as possible into the separate container until it's full. This will add 3 liters of water to the container, for a total of 9 liters.
    Fill the 3-liter bottle with water and pour it into the separate container until it's full. This will add another 3 liters of water to the container, for a total of 12 liters.
    Fill the 3-liter bottle with water again and pour as much as possible into the separate container until it's full. This will add 1 liter of water to the container, for a total of 13 liters.
    Fill the 5-liter bottle with water and pour as much as possible into the separate container until it's full. This will add another 2 liters of water to the container, for a total of 15 liters, which is approximately 4 gallons.
  
  Keep in mind that this method is approximate and assumes that 1 gallon is equal to 3.785 liters. If you need a more precise measurement, you may need to use a measuring container that is calibrated in gallons.
Starts off OK. Notice that it's eventual goal is to get 15 liters: good! But then it doesn't understand what it's doing so it messes around with the 3 liter bottle instead of knowing 3*5=15. Additionally, one of the times it fills the 3 liter bottle and pours all of it out but somehow only produces 1 liter.

Re: CheatGPT

#409

Post by armchairhacker »

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…

I know it's well-known and because it's a statistical model, but I like how ChatGPT basically fills in a Mad Lib with these replies.

> ChatGPT: I was working on a [project] that [description].

> One day, a user reported a strange issue where [issue description]. At first, I assumed it was a problem with the [feature], but as i dug deeper, I realized that the issue was actually caused by a very strange bug.

> It turned out that [bug cause]. This led to [problem].

> To fix the bug, I had to [solution]. It was definitely one of the weirdest bugs I've ever encountered, and it taught me the importance of [lesson].

Third example deviates from this template a bit but still has the key components ("strange issue", "To fix the issue, I had to" "It was definitely one of the weirdest bugs I've ever encountered, and it taught me the importance of")

Re: CheatGPT

#410

Post by Someone »

sovande wrote: post #392
kurisufag wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> they can't do math, work through basic logic problems ChatGPT begs to differ: Me: How do I measure 4 liters when I have a 3 liter bottle and a 5 liter bottle? ChatGPT: Here are the steps to measure 4 liters using a 3 liter and a 5 liter bottle: Fill the 5 liter bottle completely with water. Pour 3 liters from the 5 liter bottle into the 3 liter bottle, leaving 2 liters in the 5 liter bottle. Now you have 3 liters o…

I’m fairly sure that’s more reciting a solution learned from memory than doing math. What does it answer to

“How do I measure 12 liters when I have a 15 liter bottle and a 9 liter bottle?”

or

“How do I measure a liter when I have a 750 ml milk carton and a 12½ dl tea pot?”

I think we expect an AGI to be able to answer them, even though quite a few intelligent humans wouldn’t be able to do that.

Post reply on HN