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

GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 235 posts

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#181

Post by kossTKR »

malborodog wrote: post #49
sirsinsalot wrote: post #29

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…

This kind of problem is (trivially?) solvable through the ReAct framework, like LangChain etc. Basically you get good data, vector embed it, and make sure the LLM knows where to look for accurate information.

Slight tangent but preferably i would like an AI that can go against the status quo, the elite classes, the mainstream discourses and ignore the circus.

I think one of that most interesting things that can come of bots like GPT-X is that it can make new connections, unravel "stuff", do extremely intricate deductive reasoning.

Be the data driven arbiter of the the truth for everyone, not just the tiny established classes or cultural hegemonies.

The ideological and cultural noise increasingly smokescreen any realpolitical, material or resource-oriented analysis of actual economic power structures in the world in the last years, AI could be a godsend (or the opposite unfortunately).

I remember reading a sci-fi years ago about the stuff an AI concluded when asked philosophical questions that were so bizarre and frightening that people shut it down, and i'm sure we're in the same territory with political and scientific analysis.

It's either dangerous to the orders of the world, or not that interesting and borg like on a philosophical level.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#182

Post by boh »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #29

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…

I think AI's hype machine is definitely going to negatively affect its future. If people are made to believe it's able to automate everything and it gets just one crucial thing wrong, the loss of credibility at a time when it's supposedly a finished product will be considerable. If it gets something wrong and it's made clear it's still under development the reaction will be less negative. Currently the hype puts the current state of AI somewhere between Rosey the robot and Skynet. I don't think the realization of how far we are from either will do much to promote adoption.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#183

Post by textninja »

neuronic wrote: post #155
textninja wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The black swan event includes the unexpected emergent capabilities of LLMs, which can pass professional examinations and exhibit many attributes of general intelligence, combined with the broad availability to market and massive pressure on big industry players to adapt and innovate or die. If things keep going this way then pretty soon the black swans are going to outnumber the white ones.

Single stories of LLM success are just as problematic as single stories of LLM failures. As always. The fact is that we have a dangerous tool at hand that absolutely REQUIRES skepticism if you are trying to get *facts* out of it. I agree that LLMs are extremely likely to impact many areas of work, particularly bullshit work. But as it stands you absolutely cannot use them as fact machines, the results can be catastro…

For the most part I agree, but will qualify that the caveats you listed apply to the out of the box version of ChatGPT. I expect these limitations will be overcome by using it as programming substrate and connecting it to other models and APIs.

I am impressed by what we’ve seen from ChatGPT so far, but am especially excited to see what industry does with LLMs as new type of building block.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#184

Post by kungito »

donkeyd wrote: post #119
bloqs wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary issue is not shortage of skilled labour. This is a right wing political soundbite. What there is a shortage of is adequate pay to attract skilled people to the work required. British Doctors in the UK leave for other countries, work for private entities or go into different industries.

> leave for other countries, work for private entities or go into different industries. So... Those people fill in jobs in businesses/countries where there's a shortage, causing a shortage somewhere else? > political soundbite Is exactly what you are doing. If there's no shortage in (skilled) labor, why is unemployment at the lowest rate in decades in much of the western world? Why are there not enough builders in mu…

How about this. Let's say historically 200 square meter houses costed 200k€ to build. But not enough people can afford that. Then you make a project where you count in the cost of materials but cut down cost of labor, price the house at 150k€ and say that there is a shortage of labor because you cannot find someone to build the house for the money you have available. You can even be realistic when saying that if you increased the price of the house you couldn't sell it. Maybe there just isn't enough people willing to pay for the house for the cost other people would be willing to build it for. Even if you managed to find people to work for the reduced pay you can just create a cheaper project and cut down on labor cost even more because now you sold to all the people who were willing to buy for 150k€. The "labor shortage" is basically guaranteed for any industry all the time. All it takes is for you to create a project fitting lower on the demand curve and cut down on labor since you can't really reduce price of materials.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#185

Post by vincnetas »

visarga wrote: post #122
vincnetas wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats the problem, most people do take pills without knowing how they work, because doctor told them to take them. Also no one (probably) is vetting all the code they run on their computers. So this advice is kinda victim blaming. You ran the code that you did not verify? too bad, your own fault. You took advice from LLM? too bad, your own fault. You got tricked in the street by a crook? Too bad, your own fault. So w…

No, I verify the code I generate with chatGPT or Codex. I don't verify code I download.

I mean all the code that you run on your computer. Not just generated by AI. I think parent meant the same.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#186

Post by tracker1 »

Given an emphasis on internalized documentation, these could be significantly better, especially over time than a lot of automated support in place for a lot of companies. As long as there is some kind of escape hatch for escalation.

That said, the reality is closer to the "Johnny Cab" from the first "Total Recall" movie.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#187

Post by tracker1 »

Joeri wrote: post #140
xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using Bing AI instead of Google for a few days to test it out. It gives responses with citations. A few times already it has hallucinated details that aren't on the cited website at all, but that do sound very plausible (for example something about the horns of a bull pointing up when I asked about the etymology of "bullish".) I think it comes down to the fact that most stuff is actually like 90% bullshit s…

It is telling that ChatGPT by training on online discussions hasn’t learned to say “I don’t know”.

I wish that Amazon would put a note suggesting the if you don't know, don't answer the question... I know they send emails to people that bought something when questions come up... but for the sake of sanity, why do people actually input an "I don't know" answer?

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#188

Post by Satam »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #178
Satam wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to continue with semantics, the worker did not expect to hit his thumb until the hammer bounced off of it, hence the tool did not work as expected. Until regular hammers are able to put nails into wood by themselves, we are talking about the success of the complete system that includes both the hammer and its user. Either way, when working with humans we already deal with plenty of misses and mistakes. Pr…

Nice packpedal, except now what you said makes no sense anyway because the discussion was about tools doing what you expect them to do, not "tool + human systems" doing what you expect them to. These are two different things. Do you think a carpenter who hits themselves with a hammer blames the hammer or themselves? Or are you going to unironically tell me they would blame the hammer + human system?

Do you have a more specific point you're trying to make?

The discussion is about AI partially replacing human colleagues. In practice, people already are not 100% reliable. You make a reasonable request and someone makes a stupid blunder instead. That's the "hammer" hitting your thumb. Maybe you were not specific enough or maybe they didn't listen but the damage is done.

Our work processes already take mistakes and iterative refinement into account. If AI, in some specific niche, is cheaper and makes no more mistakes than humans do, it gets the job.

It doesn't need to be perfect or perfectly reliable. Some guardrails will be built into it, and we'll come to trust over time.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#189

Post by tracker1 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #147
shanebellone wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I keep reading these opinions that LLMs are just doing some advanced form of copy paste. Actually, we don't know what they are doing. Are they actually doing some form of modelling and abstraction? Seems likely to me." This is exactly the problem with AI. For business or government, the answer is as important as the methodology employed. A black box does not work for the majority of use cases. Until it can show its…

Humans are also "black boxes" we don't fully understand. It's worked pretty well.

Given the changes in health over the past century and a half as we've adopted "science" into food, I'm not sure that I agree.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#190

Post by tracker1 »

kossTKR wrote: post #181
malborodog wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of problem is (trivially?) solvable through the ReAct framework, like LangChain etc. Basically you get good data, vector embed it, and make sure the LLM knows where to look for accurate information.

Slight tangent but preferably i would like an AI that can go against the status quo, the elite classes, the mainstream discourses and ignore the circus. I think one of that most interesting things that can come of bots like GPT-X is that it can make new connections, unravel "stuff", do extremely intricate deductive reasoning. Be the data driven arbiter of the the truth for everyone, not just the tiny established clas…

Agreed... An example would be the recent Jordan Peterson mentions in Twitter around the bias in the system. Even without leaning one way or the other politically speaking it should be concerning... because any similar bias can easily be used to target "you".
Post reply on HN