101–110 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For one unfamiliar with the domain, this can take hours or a full day Yes, I did say expert. > But several times slower still than GPT. Almost all the output needs to be re-read, modified and integrated in the project. This often takes longer than just typing it out, even from docs -- because you're still forced to think through the solution -- which is most of the time. Typing is quick
> Almost all the output needs to be re-read, modified and integrated in the project. This often takes longer than just typing it out You'd be very suprised. Try measuring it.
The time it's taken to rewrite has been larger than not; and worse, it deprives me of understanding the problem i'm solving. So I end up not having thought through the problem and basically having to press delete and type from scratch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You need iteration and I believe these kinds of AI have the same issues as us. It's funny how we resort to humanizing the machines when their results are inaccurate. We don't do that with the calculator, because it's expected to be 100% bug free. When there's a bug in the calculator code we expect it to be fixed, not gradually improved. Speaking of bugs: mistakes in code is one thing, wrong output because of a fund…
That's (IMO) too narrow view of what a "machine" is. Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance. I still think approaching this as a "calculator" is awkward at best.
Computers are extremely close to 100%, we generally expect a CPU to never make errors even after years of working. If it starts making any errors at all we throw it away and make a new one.
An example: Of course GPT can at some point make better music than me, but I am playing an instrument not because I want to sell the recordings, but because it is a lot of fun for me.
Let GPT do my taxes, then I have more time for playing. (can it do taxes finally?)
I asked Chat GPT which antacid medications are contraindicated for some medication I'm on. Easily found through NICE. It made up a severe risk of death taking a very common medicine combo. It was super convincing, even giving information on how long to avoid taking them together. It was pure bullshit. I think as much as hyping the benefits we need to hype the flaws and dangers. If the public at large learn to trust t…
You didn't use version 4 did you? Because if feel this is pretty much already out of date. 4 does this _a lot_ less! And 5, 6 or whatever will probably be better, so i don't even really get the point here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have colleagues, bosses or reports that are correct 100% or the time? 99.999%? I would love colleagues that are 99% accurate, I certainly am not unfortunately.
> Do you have colleagues, bosses or reports that are correct 100% or the time? 99.999%? I would love colleagues that are 99% accurate, I certainly am not unfortunately. I see this analogy all the time in these comment sections but it's not a very good one. A person is not a tool. One of the great achievements of humanity, and in computing in particular, is that we make tools that are more accurate than we are. I expe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Programming skills that do not need critical thinking are more susceptible of being influenced indeed. Don't forget that a lot of science requires computer programming these days. This is the root of it: The more "genericc" your work is. The more its "out there on the internet" the more GPT can learn about it.. So, a lot of engineers that are just doign teh same old trick: Writing HTTP endpoints, parsing json. Mappin…
> The more its "out there on the internet" the more GPT can learn about it. Interesting point. Do you think this will mean less and less domain experts will share their specific domain knowledge on a subject on their own personal blogs / twitter / open internet just so it can't be mined by ChatGPT?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have colleagues, bosses or reports that are correct 100% or the time? 99.999%? I would love colleagues that are 99% accurate, I certainly am not unfortunately.
> Do you have colleagues, bosses or reports that are correct 100% or the time? 99.999%? I would love colleagues that are 99% accurate, I certainly am not unfortunately. I see this analogy all the time in these comment sections but it's not a very good one. A person is not a tool. One of the great achievements of humanity, and in computing in particular, is that we make tools that are more accurate than we are. I expe…
Honestly, I feel worse for checkout girls locally - people are more often replaced by improvements to low hanging fruit, and not the emergence of apparently incomprehensively profound. The truth is that we're impressed by this because it's magic and we don't know how magic - but it still getting way more magic really fucking fast. Right now it's still and idiot if you're not telling it what to do. Hypnotic babble. (I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's (IMO) too narrow view of what a "machine" is. Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance. I still think approaching this as a "calculator" is awkward at best.
> Complex machinery of any kind never is 100% correct and needs constant correction and maintenance Computers are extremely close to 100%, we generally expect a CPU to never make errors even after years of working. If it starts making any errors at all we throw it away and make a new one.
We must work in extremely different industries!