try clicking "Listen to article"
ChatGPT Pulse
271–280 of 766 posts
Re: ChatGPT Pulse
#272Google's edge obvious here is the deep integration it already has with calendar, apps, and chats and what not that lets them surface context-rich updates naturally. OpenAI doesn't have that same ecosystem lock-in yet, so to really compete they'll need to get more into those integrations. I think what it comes down to ultimately is that being "just a model" company isn't going to work. Intelligence itself will go to z…
I agree - I'm not sure why Google doesn't just send me a morning email to tell me what's on my calendar for the day, remind me to follow up on some emails I didn't get to yesterday or where I promised a follow up etc. They can just turn it on for everyone all at once.
Re: ChatGPT Pulse
#273[flagged]
Re: ChatGPT Pulse
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 crit…
> My personal productivity has skyrocketed in the last 12 months. Has your productivity objectively, measurably improved or does it just feel like it has improved? Recall the METR study which caught programmers self-reporting they were 20% faster with AI when they were actually 20% slower.
It seems like the programming world is increasingly dividing into “LLMs for coding are at best marginally useful and produce huge tech debt” vs “LLMs are a game changing productivity boost”.
I truly don’t know how to account for the discrepancy, I can imagine many possible explanations.
But what really gets my goat is how political this debate is becoming. To the point that the productivity-camp, of which I’m a part, is being accused of deluding themselves.
I get that OpenAI has big ethical issues. And that there’s a bubble. And that ai is damaging education. And that it may cause all sorts of economic dislocation. (I emphatically Do Not get the doomers, give me a break).
But all those things don’t negate the simple fact that for many of us, LLMs are an amazing programming tool, and we’ve been around long enough to distinguish substance from illusion. I don’t need a study to confirm what’s right in front of me.
Re: ChatGPT Pulse
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My personal productivity has skyrocketed in the last 12 months. Has your productivity objectively, measurably improved or does it just feel like it has improved? Recall the METR study which caught programmers self-reporting they were 20% faster with AI when they were actually 20% slower.
The "you only think you're more productive" argument is tiresome. Yes, I know for sure that I'm more productive. There's nothing uncertain about it. Does it lead to other problems? No doubt, but claiming my productivity gains are imaginary is not serious. I've seen a lot of people who previously touted that it doesn't work at all use that study as a way to move the goalpost and pretend they've been right all along.
We’re being accused of false consciousness!
Re: ChatGPT Pulse
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in countries with high inflation or where the banking system is unreliable are not using blockchains, either.
Do you have any proof to support this claim? Stable coins use alone is in the 10's (possibly hundreds now) of billions in daily transaction globally. I'd be interested to hear your source for your claim.
I'm from a high inflation country. Let's see your evidence of use in such countries, since you are throwing numbers out.
Re: ChatGPT Pulse
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have to be that way of course. You could envision an LLM whose "paperclip" is coaching you to become a great "xyz". Record every minute of your day, including your conversations. Feed it to the LLM. It gives feedback on what you did wrong, refuses to be your social outlet, and demands you demonstrate learning in the next day before it rewards with more attention. Basically, a fanatically devoted life coach…
If that were truly the LLM's "paperclip", then how far would it be willing to go? Would it engage in cyber-crime to surreptitiously smooth your path? Would it steal? Would it be willing to hurt other people? What if you no longer want to be a great "xyz"? What if you decide you want to turn it off (which would prevent it from following through on its goal)? "The market" is not magic. "The challenge is the incentives"…
[deleted]
Re: ChatGPT Pulse
#278My 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…
Agreed. I think AI can be a good tool, but not many people are doing very original stuff. Plus, there are many things I would prefer be greeted with, other than by an algorithm in the morning.
Re: ChatGPT Pulse
#279Google's edge obvious here is the deep integration it already has with calendar, apps, and chats and what not that lets them surface context-rich updates naturally. OpenAI doesn't have that same ecosystem lock-in yet, so to really compete they'll need to get more into those integrations. I think what it comes down to ultimately is that being "just a model" company isn't going to work. Intelligence itself will go to z…
I agree - I'm not sure why Google doesn't just send me a morning email to tell me what's on my calendar for the day, remind me to follow up on some emails I didn't get to yesterday or where I promised a follow up etc. They can just turn it on for everyone all at once.
None of those require AI though.
Re: ChatGPT Pulse
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not this again. That study had serious problems. But I’m not even going to argue about that. I want to raise something no one else seems to mention about AI in coding work. I do a lot of work now with AI that I used to code by hand, and if you told me I was 20% slower on average, I would say “that’s totally fine it’s still worth it” because the EFFORT level from my end feels so much less. It’s like, a robot vacuum mi…
> Not this again. That study had serious problems. The problem is, there are very few if any other studies. All the hype around LLMs we are supposed to just believe. Any criticism is "this study has serious problems". > It’s like, a robot vacuum might take way longer > Coding work that I used to procrastinate Note how your answer to "the study had serious problems" is totally problem-free analogies and personal anecd…
> The problem is, there are very few if any other studies.
Not at all, the METR study just got a ton of attention. There are tons out there at much larger scales, almost all of them showing significant productivity boosts for various measures of "productivity".
If you stick to the standard of "Randomly controlled trials on real-world tasks" here are a few:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4945566 (4867 developers across 3 large companies including Microsoft, measuring closed PRs)
https://www.bis.org/publ/work1208.pdf (1219 programmers at a Chinese BigTech, measuring LoC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbDDYKRFjhk (from Stanford, not an RCT, but the largest scale with actual commits from 100K developers across 600+ companies, and tries to account for reworking AI output. Same guys behind the "ghost engineers" story.)
If you look beyond real-world tasks and consider things like standardized tasks, there are a few more:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/11121676 (96 Google engineers, but same "enterprise grade" task rather than different tasks.)
https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/dfab4e9... (25 professional developers across 7 tasks at a Finnish technology consultancy.)
They all find productivity boosts in the 15 - 30% range -- with a ton of nuance, of course. If you look beyond these at things like open source commits, code reviews, developer surveys etc. you'll find even more evidence of positive impacts from AI.