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

411–420 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#411

Post by happythebob »

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…

I'm not happy to say this, but to these kinds of posts I say the truth:

An old version of ChatGPT could have written a better version of your post than you in 2-5 seconds.

Re: CheatGPT

#412

Post by sovande »

JohnFen wrote: post #305
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.

Because ChatGPT isn't thinking. It's not reasoning at all. It's assembling sentences that are statistically predicted from using existing writings as the template. Accuracy isn't a part of the process except in terms of how accurate the training data is. ChatGPT is not making any sort of truth or accuracy determination, let alone doing so poorly.

Isn’t this the whole point of John Searl’s “the Chinese room” thought experiment? But does it matter what is actually going on inside the room, if the effect and function is indistinguishable? Edit: after conferring with ChatGPT, Searle’s point like yours is that the man in the room doesn’t understand Chinese, he is just manipulating symbols, but from the outside, the man in the room seems to speak fluent Chinese.

Re: CheatGPT

#413

Post by Spivak »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #360
Spivak wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just novel applications of the things you learn in class. "Congratulations! You leaned depth-first-search! ^award noises^ Below is the algorithm for reference because memorizing it just for this test is silly. You're working on a real time mapping application called Maply. Locations are represented as nodes and all direct routes between any two nodes are represented by directed weighted edges." a) Write a function…

Novel applications? You mean incremental combinations. You realize finding and solving nontrivial problems is much more complicated task, right? This seems to imply that someone that cannot do simple things can do complicated things, where is the evidence of that? Why do the most complicated mathematics start with basic principles and work up to complex problems? Why don’t they just start with the Collatz Conjecture?

Call it whatever you want, problems that use/apply the knowledge you just learned to problems that you can’t just Google.

Re: CheatGPT

#414

Post by Aperocky »

happythebob wrote: post #411
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…

I'm not happy to say this, but to these kinds of posts I say the truth: An old version of ChatGPT could have written a better version of your post than you in 2-5 seconds.

Of course, except it said so because the training weights aligned on previously learned material, or you lead it to say so by tweaking those probabilities with your input.

You can also easily make it say the complete opposite, which you'll have a hard time to do with me, because I actually meant what I said.

In fact, the next iteration of ChatGPT might have used my very words right here to construct its response.

Re: CheatGPT

#415

Post by pixl97 »

haolez wrote: post #216
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 don't know if this is an AGI-like experiment, because LLM are trained on human knowledge. I'd expect that real AGI wouldn't need such a thing and would improve on its own. That's the moment where we become obsolete.

Mammals did not evolve from single cell creatures in order to replace the dinosaurs.

Re: CheatGPT

#416

Post by Sophira »

consumer451 wrote: post #249
resource0x wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tested several AI chats, and none of them could correctly answer the question: "what is heavier, 1 kilogram of nails or 1 kilogram of feathers?". Does this one know? (I don't have openai key, can't test it myself). EDIT: turns out, the latest version of chatGPT knows the answer. They also fixed the answer to another famous trick question("The son of my father, but not my brother. Who is that?")

I tried it. TLDR; no it does not get it correct. But ChatGPT does! > 1 kilogram of nails is heavier than 1 kilogram of feathers. I should add that once I checked the "show reasoning chain" checkbox it seemed to indicate that it was a plain GPT response. > Thought: Do I need to use a tool? No > AI: 1 kilogram of nails is heavier than 1 kilogram of feathers. > 1 kilogram of nails is heavier than 1 kilogram of feathers.…

As a control, I tried asking the same question but asking about volume instead. Unfortunately, ChatGPT appears to get it wrong:

User:

> Which is heavier: one cubic foot of nails, or one cubic foot of feathers?

ChatGPT:

> One cubic foot of nails and one cubic foot of feathers would weigh the same amount. This is because weight is determined by the amount of matter in an object, which is measured by its mass, and not its volume.

> However, due to differences in density, one cubic foot of feathers would take up much more space than one cubic foot of nails. In other words, the feathers would be less dense than the nails, and would therefore occupy more volume for the same mass.

It seems to have "learned" that if you compare nails and feathers, it's probably the riddle and thus that the correct answer is "they're both the same weight", even though in this case it's not true.

Re: CheatGPT

#417

Post by roncesvalles »

QuadrupleA wrote: post #405

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 the…

I've seen rampant pre-ChatGPT cheating at my university where it's popular for business undergrads to take computer science as a second major to get a leg up for Product Manager roles.

These people don't intend to ever write a single line of code after university. They aim to be just familiar enough with software development to be able to nod along and throw in a few buzzwords in interviews.

Big money attracts people who just want the money.

Re: CheatGPT

#418

Post by soorya3 »

This is simply a question of nail and hammer or used power tools, does it matter?

My opinion is, it doesn't matter how/what tools student used to write the program, what matters are two things 1) do they understand the program they have written 2) have they done a good job

Re: CheatGPT

#419

Post by consumer451 »

Sophira wrote: post #416
consumer451 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried it. TLDR; no it does not get it correct. But ChatGPT does! > 1 kilogram of nails is heavier than 1 kilogram of feathers. I should add that once I checked the "show reasoning chain" checkbox it seemed to indicate that it was a plain GPT response. > Thought: Do I need to use a tool? No > AI: 1 kilogram of nails is heavier than 1 kilogram of feathers. > 1 kilogram of nails is heavier than 1 kilogram of feathers.…

As a control, I tried asking the same question but asking about volume instead. Unfortunately, ChatGPT appears to get it wrong: User: > Which is heavier: one cubic foot of nails, or one cubic foot of feathers? ChatGPT: > One cubic foot of nails and one cubic foot of feathers would weigh the same amount. This is because weight is determined by the amount of matter in an object, which is measured by its mass, and not i…

Great follow up!

Well this is very interesting. I pasted your prompt into a new chat just now and I got the correct answer:

> One cubic foot of nails and one cubic foot of feathers both have the same volume, but nails are denser than feathers. Therefore, one cubic foot of nails will be heavier than one cubic foot of feathers.

Are you using the free version at chat.openai.com?

Does it say Feb 13 version at the bottom?

Re: CheatGPT

#420

Post by kerpotgh »

latency-guy2 wrote: post #294
kerpotgh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well there is, vastly increase the barrier for entry into universities. Maybe those 500 person classrooms can now be the 25 person classrooms they were actually meant to be. :)

[dead]
Post reply on HN