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

211–220 of 235 posts

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

#211

Post by bluefirebrand »

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…

> 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

There's a Charlie Brown comic about this sort of thing. Although I think it's an edit, not an original comic. Something like "They are never going to give you the education you need to overthrow them"

Similarly they are never going to give you an AI that will side with a you against them.

I would also love such an AI though.

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

#212

Post by bob1029 »

mjburgess wrote: post #80
bob1029 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People seem to be forgetting that in the vast majority of cases the thing ChatGPT is giving you is also available on stackoverflow, github, wikipeida, or 101 other high quality online sources. No one is forgetting anything over here. With StackOverflow, I have to scroll through ~2 pages of bing/google trash to even begin looking at a potential solution. This is only the beginning of the process. 99% of the time, th…

Sure, but is turning 90min of googling into 5min + 30min of rewriting, "revolutionary" ? When you're googling and reading, you're doing the work of building your understanding. That's shifted in the GPT case to afterwards. It's an advance; it's not nothing. Does it reduce the need to actually understand what you're writing -- no. That's most of the time anyway

> is turning 90min of googling into 5min + 30min of rewriting, "revolutionary" ?

I'd say so, yes. The side effect of an arbitrary feature going from 90 minutes to 35 minutes is that I am much more likely to consider features that I'd otherwise not.

I am working on a computer vision project right now that I would have never started without having this kind of access to the various algorithms. Go try to implement a sobel filter in your preferred language using traditional research, and then try it with AI assistance. I think you will start to see the light after going through a few methods like this.

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

#213

Post by raducu »

puzzledobserver wrote: post #47
karmasimida wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming is an umbrella term. IMO, there are two types of programming work: 1. Specifying. You are working on getting all requirements, and laid out the specification of the expected behavior of a system. 2. Translating. Once the specification is a nailed down. It would be taken into the hands of translators and put into actual code. Both involves critical thinking, but translators probably more susceptible to LLM…

May I add "scheming" to your list of programming activities? At the macro level, this would be system design. Making sure that the architecture is extensible, transparent to failures, and easy to understand and develop for. At the micro level, this would involve coming up with clever algorithms to solve specific problems. In ways that are simple or efficient or parsimonious. In any case, this scheming activity, which…

May I add debugging & maintaining & tuning?

I find GPT-4 awesome and certainly it will impact "programming", it's an open question how -- will there be a superclass of GPT enabled programmers that will take the jobs of the rest?

Right now GPT-4 is helping me solve real tasks at work and it feels like I'm the only accountant who has xcel, but surely others will catch on.

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

#214

Post by KurtMueller »

visarga wrote: post #120
ramraj07 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you tried GPT-4 but my experience with 4 is quite different. It has been quite bullshit free, though not completely. For example I asked it to contrast oral and injectable semaglutide formulations. It did a bang up job. One thing I always do is ask it for evidence. And then I look the references up. Sometimes the references don’t say exactly what it said they will. I come back and have a discussion with i…

> The day something gpt 4 smart can plug into my orgs codebase, each of us will get at least 2x more efficient, conservatively. Can't wait for GPT-4 VSCode integration. What I want most is to have it see the errors and files (file formats, directories, etc) so it will automatically know what is where and how it is structured. Not just code, but also data files. In the mean while I am starting to format my code in suc…

Just ask GPT-4 to write a vscode plugin for itself.

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

#215

Post by ramraj07 »

KurtMueller wrote: post #214
visarga wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The day something gpt 4 smart can plug into my orgs codebase, each of us will get at least 2x more efficient, conservatively. Can't wait for GPT-4 VSCode integration. What I want most is to have it see the errors and files (file formats, directories, etc) so it will automatically know what is where and how it is structured. Not just code, but also data files. In the mean while I am starting to format my code in suc…

Just ask GPT-4 to write a vscode plugin for itself.

There’s no way out of sending the code to gpt-4 which as of now is a no-no.

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

#216

Post by chinchilla2020 »

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…

It's a great bullshit generator.

I think upper management needs to be more scared of the implications than ICs

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

#217

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

pixl97 wrote: post #202
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>not "tool + human systems" doing what you expect them to. These are two different things. Please explain how? >Or are you going to unironically tell me they would blame the hammer + human system? As your tooling gets more complex, yes it is very easy to have a non-zero blame assignment to each party. Look at any human+machine system where complex failure conditions can occur.

You want me to explain the difference between a hammer and a human wielding one?

One is a hammer. The other is a human wielding a hammer.

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

#218

Post by bulbosaur123 »

mojuba wrote: post #36
bulbosaur123 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it GPT4 or GPT3.5? It spews less bullshit with each new iteration. Matter of time really.

I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always, and then hear from the developers that it will get better with each iteration. I need a calculator that is correct 100% of time, not even 99.999%, because otherwise I can't rely on it at all. In other words, the utility of a calculator that is correct only 99% of time is zero, since you can't ev…

So connect GPT4 with calculator using LangChain, problem solved!

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

#219

Post by EForEndeavour »

ChatGTP wrote: post #161
gwoolhurme wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you are not wrong, the idea that gives me anxiety is that this replaces all programmers. My job theoretically is safe for now. I work on fairly novel stuff, while a lot of my day is json parsing there is a big chunk of it that is domain specific. That said... it's that one day it will just take over all of programming that has me in dread. The only option then in my somewhat middle age is to unironically "learn…

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1637087219591659520 I don't know if that helps, I thought it was an interesting take. I believe we still have humanity, even if everyones job was replaced, I don't think we're going to just let each other starve, even if Microsoft have their own auto-coders, I think we'd all do our best to keep some type of economy going for as long as possible. I don't think everyone in the w…

> nor do I think the majority of the people in the world want to be filthy rich either.

I would be very surprised if only a minority of people said they'd want to become their definition of "filthy rich"!

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

#220

Post by wolpoli »

geraneum wrote: post #84
wolpoli wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this specific example, an LLM in front of NICE will produce the correct result. It's a matter of time before this case will be fixed. From a non-expert's perspective through, an LLM is very dependable, unless it completely goes off the rail. How would anyone know when to trust it and when to be skeptical?

That's not how LLMs work. Including the NICE, if it actually isn't already, will not guaranty a "correct" result. It will increase the chance that the response is directly coming from the training but there is no guarante. If you are interested in why this is the case you can read this [1] post from Stephen Wolfram on how ChatGPT and in general LLMs work. This might give some insight on how and when to to use it more…

Could we instead have the LLM use NICE similar to how Bing uses the web as a reference instead? It still wouldn't guarantee a correct result, but it would that increase the reliability, right?
Post reply on HN