Including the word 'phone' six times in a popular blog post is not going to help their predicament.
Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
111–120 of 284 posts
Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
#112I'm curious -- does anyone know of ML directions that could add any kind of factual confidence level to ChatGPT and similar? We all know now that ChatGPT is just autocomplete on steroids. It produces plausibly convincing patterns of speech. But from the way it's built and trained, it's not like there's even any kind of factual confidence level you could threshold, or anything. The concept of factuality doesn't exist…
Yann Lecun has posted a lot recently about this but basically LLMs are a "useful offramp on the road to AGI".
Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
#113I'm curious -- does anyone know of ML directions that could add any kind of factual confidence level to ChatGPT and similar? We all know now that ChatGPT is just autocomplete on steroids. It produces plausibly convincing patterns of speech. But from the way it's built and trained, it's not like there's even any kind of factual confidence level you could threshold, or anything. The concept of factuality doesn't exist…
At its core using an LM alone to solve factual problems seems silly: It's not unlike asking Dall-E to draw DOT compliant road signs.
I've gone at length at how unfortunate it would be if LMs start to get a bad rap because they're being shoehorned into being "Ask Jeeves 2.0" when they could be so much more.
Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But from the way it's built and trained, it's not like there's even any kind of factual confidence level you could threshold, or anything. The concept of factuality doesn't exist in the model at all. I'm not super familiar with ChatGPT internals, but there are plenty of ways to tack on uncertainty estimates to predictions of typical "large scale ML models" without touching Bayesian stuff (which only work for small…
Sure, but would that uncertainty estimate measure the accuracy of the data or the accuracy of it being a reasonably sounding sentence.
Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
#115Its not like ChatGPT made this up. There were pre-existing YouTube tutorials and python scripts available that used OpenCage an purported to do this. OpenCage even blogged about this problem almost a year ago[1]. Honestly it looks more like OpenCage is trying to rehash the same issue for more clicks by spinning it off the hugely popular ChatGPT keywords. Wouldn't be too surprised if they created the original python u…
This is a service that OpenCage provides, and for whatever reason OpenCage happens to be one of the popular services for this use case. (Maybe it’s because you get the text description of location back right away without having to do a round trip through a heavyweight on-screen map, maybe their free tier allows more requests than most, maybe their api is easier to use, maybe they are lucky or skilled with SEO and their tutorial happens to be the first result for some common phrases, who knows.)
So there’s this process that starts with a search for “convert phone location to address”, often involves the OpenCage api, and ends with a happy developer getting the information they wanted. Various algorithms pick up on the existence and repeated traversal of this happy path.
In another part of the internet, code tutorial content farms notice a demand for determining an incoming call’s location from the number that’s calling. They search for things like “convert phone number to location” and “convert phone number to address”. Some of these searches end up falling into the nearby well-trodden path of “convert phone location to address” and the content farmer is presented with the OpenCage api. They mess around with the api for a bit and find they can start from a phone number and get a successful api call that returns a lat/lon pair. A successful api call that returns legitimate-looking lat/lon data is all they need to make a video, they make it and post it. Higher-quality, more scrupulous code tutorials attempt to answer this same demand but find it’s not possible, so those tutorials don’t get made, leaving the less scrupulous ones that stop with a successful-looking api call to flourish in this space. The tutorial is doing well, so the content farms endlessly recycle it into blogspam.
As a result, OpenCage starts getting weird usage patterns, tracks them down, finds the source is these tutorials, and makes a post about it.
Some time later, ChatGPT is released. People are astounded with its ability to write code and start using it for this purpose. Naturally, some of those people have the same demand as the previous generation of devs who stumbled onto the unscrupulous code tutorials. Because of the blogspam, ChatGPT’s training data includes many variations on the tutorial, and just as naturally it ends up reproducing that tutorial when asked - except ChatGPT’s magic kicks in and instead of including (what its embeddings see as) some weird unrelated area-code-to-string nonsense from the tutorial, it just bullshits some plausible-sounding data plumbing code instead. Unfortunately, because the tutorial never worked in the first place, that weird hacky irrelevant bit that ChatGPT ignored happened to be the secret sauce that makes the whole thing superficially appear to work.
As a result, OpenCage starts getting weird usage patterns, tracks them down, finds the source is ChatGPT, and makes a post about it.
In deference to Hacker News’ policy of keeping comments pleasant, I will elide the analysis of the process that leads to comments accusing OpenCage of nefariously engineering the whole thing for attention.
Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
#116That's quite the predicament. I hope OpenAI will listen, to this and to anyone else in a similar situation. I'm reminded of the cases of ChatGPT recommends random people's personal phone numbers for various services. But yeah, don't trust ChatGPT for anything. Just earlier today I tried my darnedest to convince it that 2 pounds of feathers doesn't weigh the same as 1 pound of bricks, and it just would not listen, pre…
> don't trust ChatGPT for anything Agreed. But then it begs the question: what purpose does ChatGPT serve (other than for entertainment purposes or cheating on your HS/college exam)? If you have to verify its information by other means, then you're not really saving much effort.
Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
#117I'm curious -- does anyone know of ML directions that could add any kind of factual confidence level to ChatGPT and similar? We all know now that ChatGPT is just autocomplete on steroids. It produces plausibly convincing patterns of speech. But from the way it's built and trained, it's not like there's even any kind of factual confidence level you could threshold, or anything. The concept of factuality doesn't exist…
Personally, I use ChatGPT (the paid version) and Copilot every day and find them awesome enhancers.
Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
#118ChatGPT gets the rules to the pokemon trading card game wrong. It will tell you you can use 4 energy a turn. Convincingly. Not sure how it hallucinates this. The rule is 1 per turn.
Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought for sure that must be glitching, so just tried on my ChatGPT Plus account with a fresh thread, but nope: > does 2 pounds of feathers weigh more than 1 pound of bricks? > No, two pounds of feathers weigh the same as one pound of bricks. The weight of an object is determined by its mass, and one pound of any object weighs the same as one pound of any other object. However, feathers are less dense than bricks,…
This is hilarious. ChatGPT even gave me a more bizarre example. > does 2 pounds of bricks weigh more than 1 pound of bricks? > No, 2 pounds of bricks do not weigh less or more than 1 pound of bricks. 2 pounds of bricks and 1 pound of bricks refer to the same unit of weight, which is a pound. Therefore, they weigh the same, which is one pound. The difference between them is only the quantity, not the weight. > It's si…
What weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?
The trick answer is that the pound of feathers weighs more, because gold is (was) measured in a system where 1 pound = 12 ounces, while feathers would be weighed using the modern system where 1 pound = 16 ounces.
Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service
#120> All suggestions are welcome. Monetize it! Evil answer: Partner with an advertiser and sell https://api.opencagedata.com/geocode/v1/json as an ad space. This may be the first opportunity for an application/json-encoded advertisement. Nice answer: Partner with an actual phone lookup platform and respond with a 301 Moved Permanently at the endpoint.
there's no "actual phone lookup platform" you can't get a person's location by knowing their phone number, that's a huge privacy violation. You can get the location of your own phone via icloud or google's system for android. You could also install an app on your phone to track your phone's location. You cannot find people based on knowing their phone number, that would be a serious safety issue for you know people t…