Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

blog.opencagedata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 284 posts

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#231

Post by agiacalone »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #201
5555624 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The crazy part is: almost everyone added their numbers voluntarily to the white pages, because you wanted people to be able to easily find and reach you. The default was that your number would be in the phone book, it was not voluntary. If you wanted an unlisted number, you had to pay for it.

This is even crazier. For reference: I'm old enough to remember using landlines and white pages, but not old enough to have ever had a landline at my own address.

I moved to San Francisco in 1999, my early 20s, and got a landline. Cell phones were not yet the norm, and I really didn’t have much interest in having one until a girlfriend of mine insisted I get one in 2000.

If I remember correctly, Pac Bell had a “opt in” white pages phone number removal which was not charged, but my parents just a few years prior had to pay for theirs with Pac Bell.

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#232

Post by renewiltord »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #207
renewiltord wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think very many humans behave like that, actually. A recent example is people claiming that Flint, MI still has leaded water. But in the past, HN users "corroborated" that Apple is spying on them etc. Fabrication is well and alive among us.

I'm so interested to find out how you learned this lie and why you decided to believe it over the people who live there.

Certainly. It's from an erroneous inversion by me of this line https://twitter.com/beijingpalmer/status/1628585234865262593...

I interpreted "Flint has clean water" as "Flint doesn't have leaded water". But of course, one doesn't mean the other.

A classic example of me, a human, behaving like ChatGPT.

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#233

Post by renewiltord »

exodust wrote: post #204
renewiltord wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment was certainly wrong right off, though. I, a human, bullshitted just like ChatGPT.

> "...Apple is spying on them etc. Fabrication is well and alive among us." It's more likely your claim of mass-fabrication is the fabrication. Without knowing details of what you're talking about, I'd put money on any Big Tech outfit as the guilty party when it comes to privacy mistakes, double-dipping, dark patterns, hostile nag-patterns, overreach and stealing from the cookie jar. How I wish that was paranoia and…

Perhaps it is, and I'm not ChatGPT.

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#234

Post by Xylakant »

renewiltord wrote: post #135
nl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A recent example is people claiming that Flint, MI still has leaded water. Doesn't it? According to [1]: The residential lead service line replacement was initially set to be finished in 2019, according to a settlement agreement with the city. That deadline was eventually pushed back to the fall of 2022 and has most recently been set for completion in August 2023, according to city officials. and "More than 95% of…

Fair point. Which makes these humans (and me, I suppose) like ChatGPT: https://twitter.com/BeijingPalmer/status/1628585234865262593... https://twitter.com/SCPantera/status/1127416274550546432 So ChatGPT isn't all that different from people.

No, the fundamental difference is that you can reason about your mistake, can correct yourself and try to avoid falling into the same trap again. You are capable of independent thought. ChatGPT string words together.

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#235

Post by ano88888 »

seeing the amount of effort people put into to hack/optimize Page Rank SEO, we will see lots of promt manipulation by all businesses if chatGPT becomes the defacto search. Preventing system gaming is going to be 1000X more difficult for LLM which is kind of a black box

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#236

Post by renewiltord »

Xylakant wrote: post #234
renewiltord wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. Which makes these humans (and me, I suppose) like ChatGPT: https://twitter.com/BeijingPalmer/status/1628585234865262593... https://twitter.com/SCPantera/status/1127416274550546432 So ChatGPT isn't all that different from people.

No, the fundamental difference is that you can reason about your mistake, can correct yourself and try to avoid falling into the same trap again. You are capable of independent thought. ChatGPT string words together.

Perhaps not ChatGPT, though it does show admirable skill, but it seems quite likely that its successors may well be able to do that through sheer size.

Certainly, in many conversations with ChatGPT, it is indistinguishable from a human changing their mind.

Since the process of "reasoning" is not particularly well understood, it seems a bit premature to declare it different from LLMs.

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#237

Post by IshKebab »

mtmail wrote: post #110
IshKebab wrote: post #41

Well for a start you could make it more obvious what your service does do. I don't know what "geocoding" is. Converting things to/from "text" is meaningless. You have to get all the way down ... way down, past authentication to the details of the `q` query parameter before it actually tells you. At the top you should have a diagram like this: Lat, lon address With a few examples underneath.

"Past authentication", so you're looking at the https://opencagedata.com/api page. Most people go to the homepage first. Great feedback, we should make it clearer on that page and add examples earlier. Thanks!

Ah yes - I clicked on "Makers of the OpenCage Geocoding API" on your blog post which I assumed would go to your homepage (on mobile so it's a bit harder to tell).

Your actual homepage is indeed much better.

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#238

Post by dTal »

afpx wrote: post #120
rosywoozlechan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There’s no public one. But, data brokers have this info, and share it. Internally, a lot of companies can do this. So, it’s not far-fetched.

Are you saying it's routine for cell phone companies to sell live fine location data to the highest bidder? Can I get a source on that? Horrifying if true, enough to make me switch back to landlines.

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#239

Post by fy20 »

dTal wrote: post #238
afpx wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no public one. But, data brokers have this info, and share it. Internally, a lot of companies can do this. So, it’s not far-fetched.

Are you saying it's routine for cell phone companies to sell live fine location data to the highest bidder? Can I get a source on that? Horrifying if true, enough to make me switch back to landlines.

Back in 2008 I was working with a company in the UK that had an API to do this with O2. It only provided a rough area of where the user was, as it was based on which (single) cell tower the user was connected to.

I'd imagine today MIMO data is good enough to triangulate a very accurate (metres) position.

Re: Don't believe ChatGPT – we do not offer a "phone lookup" service

#240

Post by aPoCoMiLogin »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #227
SCLeo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key thing is for the AI company to actually let the user know that this is a language model, and the information it spits out should not be trusted. Obviously, Microsoft is not going to do that as they are trying to market the new bing as a information search engine.

OpenAI does its best to make it clear that it is just a language model, but what can you do with you have users that just instantly click "Agree, Agree, Next, Next, Agree"

clearly not best enough
Post reply on HN