151–160 of 282 posts
I suppose this because I recall how much search improved my productivity over flipping through books and I know how for certain tasks ChatGPT is a better source of knowledge on how to do it than search. While often the GPT output isn’t entirely correct, more often than not it suffices to make the correct solution obvious thus saving a lot of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m starting to think there’s an LLM equivalent to the old saying about how everything the media writes is accurate except on the topics you’re an expert in. All LLM output looks to be good quality except when it’s output you’re an expert in. People who have no background in writing or editing think LLMs will revolutionize those fields. Actual writers and editors take one look at LLM output and can see it’s basically…
Yep. ChatGPT is like having a junior engineer confidently asking to merge broken garbage into your codebase all the time. Adds negative value for anyone that knows what they’re doing.
I find treating it like an intern is amazing productive: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Sep/29/llms-podcast/#code-int...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Your ideas are bad. 2) Spreadsheets exist. 3) No-one cares about your marketing copy. 4) No-one finds your c-suite babble inspirational. This is almost perfect input to an LLM exactly because of how low value it is in the first place.
Ha it's fun to dunk on management consultants but I think the magic is they are like pop music producers. Somehow they're able to make the C suite hoover up LLM shovelware the same way top producers can take super obvious music and sell I V vi IV but when we try the same chords it's uninspired and no one wants to listen to it
When Scorpions wanted to be resurrected they hired Desmond Child to produce them and he absolutely crushed. These people are very good at what they do and there are very few of them.
Oh right, it's not that type of efficiency :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha it's fun to dunk on management consultants but I think the magic is they are like pop music producers. Somehow they're able to make the C suite hoover up LLM shovelware the same way top producers can take super obvious music and sell I V vi IV but when we try the same chords it's uninspired and no one wants to listen to it
The magic is in: A) Forming cross company cliques (a lot of C suite is ex consultant and they scratch each others' backs). B) ego stroking and typical sales ("this executive is a visionary who must be furnished with top quality steak and strippers") C) Letting you know on the sly what their other customers are doing that seems to be working. D) Providing industrial grade ass cover for decisions that the C suite want…
My prediction? In about 6 months, every test, task, or use of a LLM for anything that requires a modicum of creativity is going to find that it only has a fixed set of "ideas" before it starts regurgitating them. [0] I can easily imagine this in their hypothetical shoe pitch question, and many models going for more factual answers have been rapidly showing this bias by design. [0] https://www.marktechpost.com/2023/06…
https://github.com/DLR-SC/JokeGPT-WASSA23/blob/main/01_joke_...
That's a bad way to use an LLM for joke generation.
Try "tell me a joke about a sea lion" - then replace sea lion with any other animal.
Or "tell me ten jokes about a lawyer on the moon" - combine concepts like that and you get an infinite variety of jokes.
Some of them might even be funny!
> Two distinct patterns of AI use emerged: “Centaurs,” who divided and delegated tasks between themselves and the AI, and “Cyborgs,” who integrated their workflow with the AI. It was nice of them to explain that the article was total horse dung before having to read the whole paper
>integrated their workflow with the AI
What the hell is even the difference? Was the article itself written by ChatGPT?
More details in this blog post by a Wharton professor: https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/centaurs-and-cyborgs-on-the... My questions to naysayers: * Do you or anyone you know use GPT-4 (not the free GPT-3.5) to do productive tasks like coding and found it to help in many cases? * If you insist it’s useless, why do millions of people pay $20 a month to access GPT-4 and plugins?
Yes, GPT-4 is great for doing “boring work” and allows me to focus on the “fun work”. You still need to know what you’re doing though, you can’t blindly copy and paste. And for the second one, although I am paying for it too, this idea is more or less flawed nowadays. Utilization is a very hand wavy thing when it comes to this stuff. Like a purse, millions would pay money for it, some even pay thousands. But I have n…
More details in this blog post by a Wharton professor: https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/centaurs-and-cyborgs-on-the... My questions to naysayers: * Do you or anyone you know use GPT-4 (not the free GPT-3.5) to do productive tasks like coding and found it to help in many cases? * If you insist it’s useless, why do millions of people pay $20 a month to access GPT-4 and plugins?
I have free access to copilot because I do some open source work. I haven't been impressed by what it can do and I wouldn't pay even $3/month to use it. The second question doesn't make sense to me. There are tons of things I think are useless (or worse) that people pay for anyway. Meal kit boxes come to mind, and at least you can eat those at the end of the day.
Getting great results out of it takes a lot of experimentation and practice. I wouldn't want to give it up now I've learned how to use it.
In other words, companies can replace consultants with GPT-4.
Absolutely zero add value in experience. The only add-value is the consultant overcoming the hearing deficiency of the Director involved.
ConsulatancyGPT: Feed all internal opinions of a company into an LLM. Ask for the a recommendation. Done.
/rant.