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

421–430 of 544 posts

Re: CheatGPT

#421

Post by barking_biscuit »

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…

>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.

It's a little hard to take this argument entirely at face value when you can ask it to produce things that aren't in its training data to begin with, but are synthesized from things that are in the training data. I remember being pretty impressed with reading the one where someone asked it to write a parable in the style of the King James bible about someone putting peanut butter toast in a VCR and it did a bang up job. I've asked it to explain all sorts of concepts to me through specific types of analogies/metaphors and it does a really good job at it.

I think the semantics around whether it itself possesses or is displaying "intelligence" isn't the point. I treat it kind of like an emulator. It's able to emulate certain narrow slice of intelligent behavior. If a gameboy emulator still lets me play the game I want to play, then what does it matter that it's not a real gameboy?

Re: CheatGPT

#422

Post by smoe »

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…

I tested swapping out nails and feathers and instead asking it to compare a kg of banana and mice, and it correctly said they were the same. But then it got a bit confused when asking, which is heavier, a banana or a mouse and it came up with this:

> In general, a mouse is heavier than a banana.

> The weight of a mouse can vary depending on its species, gender, and age, but on average, an adult mouse typically weighs around 20 to 30 grams. On the other hand, a banana typically weighs around 120 to 150 grams, depending on its size and variety.

> Therefore, a mouse is usually much heavier than a banana

Re: CheatGPT

#423

Post by yodsanklai »

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…

> going to be a lot of traditional on-site assessment, abandoning the continuous assessment fad

Maybe because I'm from a latin country, but I was always under the impression that only on-site assessment mattered, as continuous assessment provides no signal considering many students cheat. Even what we call "continuous assessment" is done on site.

Re: CheatGPT

#424

Post by yodsanklai »

stillsleepy wrote: post #91
novok wrote: post #53

The failure mode of things like ChatGPT is it can make wrong answers confidently, subtly, and if you don't have the skill to audit what is wrong with the answer, then it can be fairly catastrophic. So instead of making questions generative, you make them audits / debugging type ones. Use ChatGPT to generate a result after several iterations that is wrong and then ask them what is wrong with the result. Since ChatGPT…

the other week i gave chatgpt a simple multiplication problem that it got wrong. very simple problem like 86 * 0.0007 or something. but ive been working with chatgpt for 4-5 weeks now and that wrong answer doesnt make up for all the "good answers" that are usually not perfect. like one day i needed to COALESCE in mysql. i didnt know that, but chatgpt did. theres a few times i would have written a function the complic…

I was dismissive at first, but I have to admit chatgpt brings a lot of value to programmers. It saves me a lot of time remembering some APIs or syntax for languages I use only occasionally. It's sometimes wrong, but for programming, it's easy to detect and fix.

But it's more problematic for non-programming questions where it's hard to check the answer without googling it.

Re: CheatGPT

#425

Post by Aperocky »

roncesvalles wrote: post #417
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…

This is why leetcode problems might have some actual use.

Re: CheatGPT

#426

Post by reilly3000 »

roncesvalles wrote: post #417
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…

This essentially makes credentials more meaningless than ever, even as tuition has grown astronomically.

The cost of making a poor hiring decision can be vast throughout an organization and punish its velocity. It’s pretty typical to want to minimize risk in scenarios like that, so reputable credentials can instill confidence and get past gatekeepers.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have a better way to prove domain expertise, adaptive reasoning, and collaboration skills?

Re: CheatGPT

#427

Post by andsoitis »

Aperocky wrote: post #402
kurthr wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I didn’t think you are implying that having knowledge (ready to go) is of no value.

Having more knowledge gives a huge advantage in time and space. Not only can you solve problems much faster (you don’t need to find, read, understand, and internalize the “knowledge”) you can also make connections that others would miss because to gain knowledge is deeper than mere recall.

Re: CheatGPT

#428

Post by asdff »

jefftk wrote: post #363
asdff wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm proposing a device that pretends to be a keyboard, and mimics typing in the code

And a counter for that could be a laptop device with the usb ports disabled. A lot of this stuff is solved with some basic IT imo.

Re: CheatGPT

#429

Post by reilly3000 »

Aperocky wrote: post #425
roncesvalles wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is why leetcode problems might have some actual use.

I wish. They are the most easily exploitable, sadly. People memorize and dump stuff all the time, and it usually doesn’t show reasoning, just how much money and effort you spent on CS fundamentals.

My team has weeded out a lot of bad candidates with super simple, practical tasks. Explain DNS. Order keys from a JSON object. Make a 2 column layout in plain html. You would be amazed at who can’t do that.

What we don’t do is ask the same questions too many people times, as we know some candidates compare notes and even publish the interview questions. With large language models doing the talking we have already found candidates that have been unable to describe the for loop copilot made for them off-screen… so I guess the best system is to be good at being humans and having a go at working together in something.

Re: CheatGPT

#430

Post by dpflan »

pixl97 wrote: post #397
dpflan wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“People are getting tripped up because they are seeing legitimate intelligence in the output from these systems -- but that intelligence was in the people who wrote the texts that it was trained with, not in the LLM.” This is the real magic. Let’s train ChatGPT on absolute garbage information and compare the intelligence of the two.

Let's take a kid and teach them garbage information as they are growing up... minimize as much 'real knowledge' as possible and see what comes out.

Agree. What happens? Is a human by default accepted to be an “AGI” entity?
Post reply on HN