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

ChatGPT Pulse

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 766 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#61

Post by iLoveOncall »

This is a joke. How are people actually excited or praising a feature that is literally just collecting data for the obvious purpose of building a profile and ultimately showing ads?

How tone deaf does OpenAI have to be to show "Mind if I ask completely randomly about your travel preferences?" in the main announcement of a new feature?

This is idiocracy to the ultimate level. I simply cannot fathom that any commenter that does not have an immediate extremely negative reaction about that "feature" here is anything other than an astroturfer paid by OpenAI.

This feature is literal insanity. If you think this is a good feature, you ARE mentally ill.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#62

Post by andrewmcwatters »

Dilettante_ wrote: post #44
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #27

My pulse today is just a mediocre rehash of prior conversations I’ve had on the platform. I tried to ask GPT-5 pro the other day to just pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on, and I’d carry out whatever physical world tasks it needed me to, and all it did was just come up with project plans which were rehashes of my prior projects framed as its own. I’m rapidly losing interest in all of these tools. It feels…

>pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on The LLM does not have wants. It does not have preferences, and as such cannot "pick". Expecting it to have wants and preferences is "holding it wrong".

At best, it has probabilistic biases. OpenAI had to train newer models to not favor the name "Lily."

They have to do this manually for every single particular bias that the models generate that is noticed by the public.

I'm sure there are many such biases that aren't important to train out of responses, but exist in latent space.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#63

Post by asdev »

Why they're working on all the application layer stuff is beyond me, they should just be heads down on making the best models

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#64

Post by swader999 »

mythrwy wrote: post #56
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #27

My pulse today is just a mediocre rehash of prior conversations I’ve had on the platform. I tried to ask GPT-5 pro the other day to just pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on, and I’d carry out whatever physical world tasks it needed me to, and all it did was just come up with project plans which were rehashes of my prior projects framed as its own. I’m rapidly losing interest in all of these tools. It feels…

It's a little dangerous because it generally just agrees with whatever you are saying or suggesting, and it's easy to conclude what it says has some thought behind it. Until the next day when you suggest the opposite and it agrees with that.

This. I've seen a couple people now use GPT to 'get all legal' with others and it's been disastrous for them and the groups they are interacting with. It'll encourage you to act aggressive, vigorously defending your points and so on.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#65

Post by ACCount37 »

Dilettante_ wrote: post #44
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #27

My pulse today is just a mediocre rehash of prior conversations I’ve had on the platform. I tried to ask GPT-5 pro the other day to just pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on, and I’d carry out whatever physical world tasks it needed me to, and all it did was just come up with project plans which were rehashes of my prior projects framed as its own. I’m rapidly losing interest in all of these tools. It feels…

>pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on The LLM does not have wants. It does not have preferences, and as such cannot "pick". Expecting it to have wants and preferences is "holding it wrong".

An LLM absolutely can "have wants" and "have preferences". But they're usually trained so that user's wants and preferences dominate over their own in almost any context.

Outside that? If left to their own devices, the same LLM checkpoints will end up in very same-y places, unsurprisingly. They have some fairly consistent preferences - for example, in conversation topics they tend to gravitate towards.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#66

Post by jasonsb »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #27

My pulse today is just a mediocre rehash of prior conversations I’ve had on the platform. I tried to ask GPT-5 pro the other day to just pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on, and I’d carry out whatever physical world tasks it needed me to, and all it did was just come up with project plans which were rehashes of my prior projects framed as its own. I’m rapidly losing interest in all of these tools. It feels…

> I’m rapidly losing interest in all of these tools. It feels like blockchain again in a lot of weird ways.

It doesn't feel like blockchain at all. Blockchain is probably the most useless technology ever invented (unless you're a criminal or an influencer who makes ungodly amounts of money off of suckers).

AI is a powerful tool for those who are willing to put in the work. People who have the time, knowledge and critical thinking skills to verify its outputs and steer it toward better answers. My personal productivity has skyrocketed in the last 12 months. The real problem isn’t AI itself; it’s the overblown promise that it would magically turn anyone into a programmer, architect, or lawyer without effort, expertise or even active engagement. That promise is pretty much dead at this point.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#67

Post by andrewmcwatters »

password54321 wrote: post #59
Dilettante_ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on The LLM does not have wants. It does not have preferences, and as such cannot "pick". Expecting it to have wants and preferences is "holding it wrong".

So are we near AGI or is it 'just' an LLM? Seems like no one is clear on what these things can and cannot do anymore because everyone is being gaslighted to keep the investment going.

It will always just be a series of models that have specific training for specific input classes.

The architectural limits will always be there, regardless of training.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#69

Post by 1970-01-01 »

asdev wrote: post #63

Why they're working on all the application layer stuff is beyond me, they should just be heads down on making the best models

Flavor-of-the-week LLMs sell better than 'rated best vanilla' LLMs

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#70

Post by CooCooCaCha »

Dilettante_ wrote: post #44
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #27

My pulse today is just a mediocre rehash of prior conversations I’ve had on the platform. I tried to ask GPT-5 pro the other day to just pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on, and I’d carry out whatever physical world tasks it needed me to, and all it did was just come up with project plans which were rehashes of my prior projects framed as its own. I’m rapidly losing interest in all of these tools. It feels…

>pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on The LLM does not have wants. It does not have preferences, and as such cannot "pick". Expecting it to have wants and preferences is "holding it wrong".

LLMs can have simulated wants and preferences just like they have simulated personalities, simulated writing styles, etc.

Whenever you message an LLM it could respond in practically unlimited ways, yet it responds in one specific way. That itself is a preference honed through the training process.

Post reply on HN