Live data from Hacker News

There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

twitter.com

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

#51
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't work in tech and I use LLaMa. It is great for writing overviews of a subject which I use to make sure I have most of my bases covered (and helping me see which of my ideas are more original), getting more examples, along with other creative tasks. Getting it to compare two subjects to see what they have in common is usually quite helpful.

The issue is i tried using these types of tools for a while and each response is inaccurate. It becomes annoying to constantly ask it to correct it or having to doubt the output. Works well for what is statistically likely to be abundant in information but you know that’s usually of little value.

I use them for brainstorming. I get such great ideas, I don't mind if they miss now and then.

Information can be abundant yet hidden in obtuse or misleading writing. LLMs produce writing that is quite accessible.

Re: There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went for a walk and had a conversation about Rademacher complexity and VC-dimension of a classifier, then I asked it to quiz my understanding based on what we talked about. It's almost at the level on "Her" but you have a very knowledgeable tutor to ask who won't judge and is always available.

Thats a pretty neat use of chatgpt. My sister is prepping for USMLE. Wonder if she can do something like this too.

Until ChatGPT can store and reference all past conversations, I'd suggest asking it to generate flashcards for e.g. Anki. I've mainly used it when I want to understand or deepen my understanding of something pretty specific.

Re: There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

#53
post #3

At $10/month, ChatGPT-4 is reasonable. At $20, that's a no no!

I use it usually 10-20 times per day. 5-10 when I'm not working and like 20-30 when I'm working. It saves me a huge amount of time. It would already make sense at a wage of $20 but I earn more and so it is so much worth it. Even if I earn no wage (say a indie dev working on a game) it would still be useful because I save time which I can invest in other things (or play video games). I'd honestly pay $50-$100 for it a…

Same, I'd pay way more than $20/month. It saves me so much time it's insane. For the past several months I'd been trying to write a tree sitter parser, and I had a really hard time with the docs for some reason. I sat down with ChatGPT and had a working V1 parser in like 3 hours. And it wasn't just feeding me instructions, I was actively conversing with it, going off into tangents when I didn't understand something, etc. It's just...magic. I love it.

I do feel morally conflicted about how humanity built the entire internet basically for free, and OpenAI is just regurgitating it back to us and getting rich off of our collective data. But the tool is so goddamn useful that I can't help myself regardless.

Re: There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it usually 10-20 times per day. 5-10 when I'm not working and like 20-30 when I'm working. It saves me a huge amount of time. It would already make sense at a wage of $20 but I earn more and so it is so much worth it. Even if I earn no wage (say a indie dev working on a game) it would still be useful because I save time which I can invest in other things (or play video games). I'd honestly pay $50-$100 for it a…

Why are reddit and forums full of people asking how to make chatgpt code work, and are always downvoted?

I think it's because AI is a crutch for junior engineers, and a rocket for senior engineers. It takes some degree of wisdom to know how to use it effectively, and the idea that you're going to lean entirely on it to make your program work is...misguided at best.

Re: There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are all sorts of questions I've had that are either very hard, or very annoying, to use Google for. They're often technical, but really they could be anything. Two recent examples that comes to mind: 1. I was helping my 6 year old niece with her homework, and the exercise was extremely confusing. It had 3 pictures - a gumball machine, an owl, and something else (can't remember). The instructions said "for each…

> It's one of those things where, the more you think about it, the more confused you get. > it successfully interpreted the picture Sorry, but how did you know that interpretation was a success?

Because it explained what the exercise was. I just tried sharing but it said "sharing chats with images is not yet supported", so I'll paste what it said:

'Assignment 6 on the homework sheet you've provided is a grammar exercise that asks the student to think of two adjectives (describing words) that describe what each of the three pictures can do. The pictures are labeled "bubble gum," "porcupine," and "milk." It seems your niece has already filled out the adjectives for the bubble gum as "chew" and "blow," which are actions rather than descriptive adjectives. Adjectives for bubble gum might be "sticky" and "sweet." For the porcupine, adjectives like "spiky" and "prickly" would be appropriate, and for the milk, "cold" and "creamy" could work. The task is to use descriptive words, not actions or verbs.'

So then I said:

'What’s confusing is that it says “an adjective describing what each picture can do”. Isn’t that a verb?'

And it responded:

'You're correct; there seems to be a misunderstanding in the instructions. Adjectives are words that describe the qualities or states of being of nouns—like 'red,' 'quick,' 'tall,' 'sleepy,' etc., while verbs are action words like 'run,' 'talk,' 'eat,' 'do.'

The phrase "describing what each picture can do" indeed suggests action, which would typically be described by a verb. However, since the instructions are asking specifically for adjectives, it seems they want descriptive words that can indirectly suggest an action or capability. For instance:

For bubble gum: "stretchy" (since it can be stretched) and "flavorful" (since it has a taste). For the porcupine: "sharp" (since it has quills that can prick) and "defensive" (since it can use its quills to defend itself). For the milk: "refreshing" (since it can be refreshing to drink) and "nutritious" (since it provides nutrition). These adjectives describe the qualities of the nouns that relate to what they can do without being action words themselves.'

Re: There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

#56
post #29

Not sure if it’s related or not but I noticed the UX has changed on the web interface and when I ask for code, it now defaults to running it through an interpreter with a hidden view by default. This is very annoying to me as I want to mostly read the code, not have it be executed without any context

Is it smart enough to solve the halting problem and not bother running code with infinite loops?

Re: There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's one of those things where, the more you think about it, the more confused you get. > it successfully interpreted the picture Sorry, but how did you know that interpretation was a success?

Because it explained what the exercise was. I just tried sharing but it said "sharing chats with images is not yet supported", so I'll paste what it said: 'Assignment 6 on the homework sheet you've provided is a grammar exercise that asks the student to think of two adjectives (describing words) that describe what each of the three pictures can do. The pictures are labeled "bubble gum," "porcupine," and "milk." It se…

Thats such a neat example. Thank you!

Re: There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

#59
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GPT-4 is definitely closer to the latter than to the former. That’s a seriously dubious statement.

Have you used it? A GPT4 chatbot could convince 90% of people it was a human, right now. It could pass the majority of knowledge-based tests in all kinds of fields. 100 million people find it useful enough to use weekly.

No level of capability is enough to convince some people it's not just a stochastic parrot. You're completely right on the Turing test. At this point it's just a matter of how long it could fool us. You have to remember it's not specifically trained to fool us either, it's trained through RLHF to be verbose and "helpful". If you train it right and add in some RAG (vector databases) I think you could fool most people for a pretty long time, some gullible people forever.

Re: There is a new version of GPT-4 Turbo now live in ChatGPT

#60

The new model combined with the GPTs feature is incredible. I made 10 GPTs yesterday. My favorite is Meme Machine, where you just specify a concept like "return to office, safari animals" and it generates an image with DALL-E and then composites text over it using Python: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/17tb7rm/mememachin... I noticed all my GPTs started working better yesterday, must have been the new mode…

I just added one paragraph to my Meme Machine GPT, and now it can generate animated gifs with DALL-E.

Try it here: https://chat.openai.com/g/g-MP5Cx7F7W-meme-machine

Post reply on HN