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

ChatGPT: A Mental Model

xorvoid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#31

Post by moffkalast »

IanCal wrote: post #23
LightBug1 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

//Remember boys and girls: self driving cars don’t need to be perfect, just better than humans. Fudamentally disagree. Self driving cars need to be effectively perfect (almost impossible) for me to consider them. I would rather be in a situation where the circumstances mean that there is a greater probability of me crashing, but under my control, rather than a "random" coding error or AI hallucination taking me and m…

So you want to deliberately put your family in more danger just so that it'll be your fault if they get hurt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control

It's a cognitive bias in all of us, including the lawmakers approving the use of self driving cars.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#32

Post by mintaka5 »

it all just feels like a rebranded search engine. which we failed to effectively use the first time around. If AI could figure out how to process all the human bullshit busy-work we do, then I think we have a future, but for now let's just call it a really good bot.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#33

Post by mintaka5 »

LightBug1 wrote: post #13
jiggawatts wrote: post #2

Jiggawatts’ second rule: “Unless an opinion on LLM technology includes the specific phrase ‘GPT 4’, it can be dismissed.” The author tried older, thoroughly outdated models, and has decided to publicly state an opinion without bothering to check if it’s still valid or not. Ironically confirming that humans are just as susceptible to writing false statements as Chat AIs. Remember boys and girls: self driving cars don’…

//Remember boys and girls: self driving cars don’t need to be perfect, just better than humans. Fudamentally disagree. Self driving cars need to be effectively perfect (almost impossible) for me to consider them. I would rather be in a situation where the circumstances mean that there is a greater probability of me crashing, but under my control, rather than a "random" coding error or AI hallucination taking me and m…

It's all about control, folks. I despise that you consider yourself the "savior" here because you saved your family from AI driving. Nope, you'd rather cast doubt on something than embrace it because of insignificant human ego. It matters to you and your precious family, but does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Huh?

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#34

Post by mft_ »

jiggawatts wrote: post #20
mft_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the people on the left of the curve are likely doing different shades of manual work. This is often work that automation is struggling to replicate --think grasping and packing in a warehouse, or tidying up a messy shelf of goods-- and the GPTs won't change this. I'd argue it's maybe the middle and even the right of the curve that's threatened. Is your job writing marketing copy, or communications materials…

> and the GPTs won't change this. I suspect but cannot prove that the opposite will be the case. We can make bipedal robots now, but we can’t give them instructions , not like we can instruct human labourers. “Bob, go to where George ate his lunch an hour ago and bring me the tools for fixing a pipe” was an impossible instruction for a robot to execute. Suddenly this is a trivial sentence for an AI that knows what ty…

That's not quite the issue I'm raising. It's not about being able to communicate better with existing robots - it's where (as yet) there are no robots suitable to do the job.

There are plenty of tasks which are simple, tedious and repetitive - and yet are resistant (currently) to automation. An example is sorting mixed plastic waste into categories according to the type of plastic. This is comparatively trivial for almost any human, and (afaik) not yet possible to automate. (Another is picking and packing things in Amazon's warehouse - which we know they've expended huge effort in trying to solve.)

Look at it the other way around: why are all simple, tedious, repetitive jobs not already automated? It's either because it's possible but not economically feasible, or no-one's tried yet... or because it's really difficult and so far there's no solution.

This last category represents a lot of 'low end' jobs. GPTs are unlikely to move the needle here, as appropriate robots to carry out the tasks don't exist yet.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#35

Post by swores »

bamboozled wrote: post #16
jiggawatts wrote: post #2

Jiggawatts’ second rule: “Unless an opinion on LLM technology includes the specific phrase ‘GPT 4’, it can be dismissed.” The author tried older, thoroughly outdated models, and has decided to publicly state an opinion without bothering to check if it’s still valid or not. Ironically confirming that humans are just as susceptible to writing false statements as Chat AIs. Remember boys and girls: self driving cars don’…

Who is Jigawatt and why is he relevant at all?

It's the commenter you're replying to, they're just expressing their own opinion, so not specifically more relevant than any other comment here.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#36

Post by 36083155 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #2

Jiggawatts’ second rule: “Unless an opinion on LLM technology includes the specific phrase ‘GPT 4’, it can be dismissed.” The author tried older, thoroughly outdated models, and has decided to publicly state an opinion without bothering to check if it’s still valid or not. Ironically confirming that humans are just as susceptible to writing false statements as Chat AIs. Remember boys and girls: self driving cars don’…

counter point 1: Fewer people are using gpt 4 than those using all other models. So it is subject to far less tests than the others.

counter point 2: It is not a given that gpt 4 should fail in the same way as the older model. It likely has its own unique failure modes yet to be discovered. (See above)

(boys and girls is patronizing in tone)

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#37

Post by edelans »

andreyk wrote: post #21

Lots of lead up to it, but the punchline is: "My current mental model of ChatGPT is that it’s akin to a “Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the Entirety of Human Knowledge”. There are two very different ways to interpret that: (1) Meh, it’s just a silly stats trick and (2) Holy F**ing Shit!!" This is almost right... It's a fair way to think of GPT3/4 (sort of), but given RLHF ChatGPT is a pretty different beast. Anyway…

RLHF = Reinforcement learning from human feedback

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning_from_hu...

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#38

Post by mannykannot »

allisdust wrote: post #26
jiggawatts wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude. Dude . I’m an IT professional and I have no idea how to begin answering that request! Pose that question verbatim to a dozen random people[1] and I guarantee you that you’ll get zero answers. Also, I find it hilarious that sed and awk are so counterintuitive that not even the AIs can do useful things with them. The same AIs that speak Latin, and can explain quantum mechanics. [1] I mean specifically not random…

That would mean nothing because GPT4 isn't most people. I had it solve more complex problems than this particular one and using the same tools :)

Interesting! I, for one, would be most appreciative if we could see some of the similar and more difficult tasks that it succeeds on.

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#39

Post by [deleted] »

andreyk wrote: post #21

Lots of lead up to it, but the punchline is: "My current mental model of ChatGPT is that it’s akin to a “Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the Entirety of Human Knowledge”. There are two very different ways to interpret that: (1) Meh, it’s just a silly stats trick and (2) Holy F**ing Shit!!" This is almost right... It's a fair way to think of GPT3/4 (sort of), but given RLHF ChatGPT is a pretty different beast. Anyway…

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT: A Mental Model

#40

Post by IanCal »

allisdust wrote: post #27
IanCal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give it space to think. It's like talking to someone and taking their train of thought as the only output, the worst kind of whiteboard programming interview. You can get them to talk through the problem, build parts, test things, etc. Also, this is a horrible problem to solve with awkward tools. Why is your code file to large to cat???

Most code files are usually too large to 'cat' because of the context size limitations. Even if they fit within the context window, it's waste of API credits to provide it the information that it doesn't need. Anyways posting this here isn't to get this particular problem solved. It is to see if there is a prompt that can solve it. And this is the only problem I found it not able to solve. It's not like it doesn't kn…

> Most code files are usually too large to 'cat' because of the context size limitations

These are command line tools though, not piping it into the llm.

My point though was more about giving it space to reason. It's very important for good results on more complex tasks.

Post reply on HN