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

GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 341 posts

Re: GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

#311

Post by jatins »

Terretta wrote: post #309
jatins wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how much money ... I saw that announcement and my immediate thought was "God yet another thing passive income youtubers will be shilling soon" In general, I was a little confused by this. Sam's demo of creating a GPT didn't seem particularly exciting as well.

> shilling soon Study the Poe ecosystem, and look at YouTube or Reddit. . . . EDIT: adding the detail from my comment 2 below, I'm referring to... Bot creator monetization: https://developer.poe.com/resources/creator-monetization Earn money when: - your bot brings a user to Poe for the first time and they eventually subscribe - your bot brings a user back to Poe and they eventually subscribe - your bot’s paywall is s…

Out of loop on Poe. What's happening there?

Re: GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

#312

Post by jondwillis »

golol wrote: post #293
zer0c00ler wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT and plugins were already agents. An agent just does stuff on somebody else’s behalf. Browsing, browses the Internet for the user, code interpreter creates and runs Python code for the user… What you describe are what’s called autonomous agents, and i agree that I also expected some interesting announcement there but probably too many security issues.

Well, I would say that when people at the moment say agent they mean what you call autonomous agent. Browsing or code interpreter is just LLM + tool use. I think there is a really large difference in quality between a system that just interacts 1-2 times with some tool/API before giving an answer and one that runs in a loop with undefined length (until it decides to terminate). It's like the difference between progra…

Currently the loop results in compounding errors and attention failure. Even with reviews, grounding information, and veracity checks in place by other LLMs it still happens.

Re: GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

#313

Post by jondwillis »

golol wrote: post #275
jondwillis wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“GPTs” (terrible name) === Agents

Not even. An agent should primarily operate in some kind of self-prompting loop. Afaik xou can not specify complex and branching looping behaviors for GPTs.

You can have a GPT/Assistant/Agent (OpenAI is using all three terms) call out to an API that has a looping agent behind it.

Re: GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

#314

Post by column »

joshstrange wrote: post #303
column wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is even more annoying is every plus subscriber whining that they didn't get the feature yet. We know, you paid and you want to play now, but it's a rollout and it's progressively coming towards you. Just have a little bit of patience.

You’re completely missing the point. If they said “rolling out over the next week” it’d be one thing but they almost always say “available now” and it’s not. That’s not ok, that’s what we call a lie.

More whining...

Re: GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

#315

Post by Terretta »

jatins wrote: post #311
Terretta wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shilling soon Study the Poe ecosystem, and look at YouTube or Reddit. . . . EDIT: adding the detail from my comment 2 below, I'm referring to... Bot creator monetization: https://developer.poe.com/resources/creator-monetization Earn money when: - your bot brings a user to Poe for the first time and they eventually subscribe - your bot brings a user back to Poe and they eventually subscribe - your bot’s paywall is s…

Out of loop on Poe. What's happening there?

Bot creator monetization:

https://developer.poe.com/resources/creator-monetization

Earn money when:

- your bot brings a user to Poe for the first time and they eventually subscribe

- your bot brings a user back to Poe and they eventually subscribe

- your bot’s paywall is seen just before a user subscribes users send messages to your bot (starting soon)

Re: GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

#316

Post by spencerchubb »

joshstrange wrote: post #303
column wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is even more annoying is every plus subscriber whining that they didn't get the feature yet. We know, you paid and you want to play now, but it's a rollout and it's progressively coming towards you. Just have a little bit of patience.

You’re completely missing the point. If they said “rolling out over the next week” it’d be one thing but they almost always say “available now” and it’s not. That’s not ok, that’s what we call a lie.

Nobody is going to say "We are rolling it out to a random set of users, and then if there are no crashes, we will roll out to more" in a marketing demo.

Were you or anyone else harmed by the lie?

Re: GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

#317

Post by golol »

jondwillis wrote: post #312
golol wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I would say that when people at the moment say agent they mean what you call autonomous agent. Browsing or code interpreter is just LLM + tool use. I think there is a really large difference in quality between a system that just interacts 1-2 times with some tool/API before giving an answer and one that runs in a loop with undefined length (until it decides to terminate). It's like the difference between progra…

Currently the loop results in compounding errors and attention failure. Even with reviews, grounding information, and veracity checks in place by other LLMs it still happens.

Yes, agents don't really work yet, I agree.

Re: GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

#319

Post by MeImCounting »

cubefox wrote: post #279
MeImCounting wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not an article that is a series of short-form tweets. If it was an actual article I would absolutely read it but I cannot see referencing a bunch of tweets from a self-proclaimed expert as in any sense good faith. I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk but you failed to provide any interesting ideas. So I wont engage with what from my perspective is fearmongeri…

> That is not an article that is a series of short-form tweets. If it was an actual article I would absolutely read it So you didn't even read the tweets? They contain the link to a paper. > self-proclaimed expert Esvelt is absolutely a recognized expert on biotechnology. The authors of the article you linked to are not. > I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk I just…

Oh you mean the paper that was discredited in the link I already shared? I am not going to copy and paste the argument from the link I shared, you can read it for yourself. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read the article that you claimed to read but unfortunately good faith arguments around this seem impossible to have with the alarmist crowd.

Re: GPTs: Custom versions of ChatGPT

#320

Post by joshspankit »

intended wrote: post #273
joshspankit wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m suddenly worried about that future. The more elaborate the moderation tooling, the faster the race to the bottom gets as revenue drives black-hat marketers to become experts in circumventing AI moderation. It could end up being Google “S”EO all over again where we eventually ended up with very little real information in the results.

In theory yes, however thats the long run scenario. The short term and middle term are complex enough that the long run becomes irrelevant. Moderation tooling is not as elaborate as we would hope, and all your work is with humans - who keep adapting.

I don’t think it’s that far away. It’s not just that technology has been accelerating over the past few decades, it’s that the humans have been gaining more and more knowledge about the bigger fundamental patterns that technology uses.

As a very rough example: if their demographic is Americans they will come out the gate with proper spelling, grammar and sentence structure that’s been run through LLM(s), and an overall branding that does not raise any immediate red flags. If someone tries to implement a blacklist or whitelist of words, they will walk past it like it wasn’t even there.

Post reply on HN