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

311–320 of 766 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#311

Post by Gigachad »

giarc wrote: post #272
xwowsersx wrote: post #13

Google'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.

Because it would just get lost in the noise of all the million other apps trying to grab your attention. Rather than sending yet another email, they should start filtering out the noise from everyone else to highlight the stuff that actually matters.

Hide the notifications from uber which are just adverts and leave the one from your friend sending you a message on the lock screen.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#312

Post by keeda »

risyachka wrote: post #291
keeda wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (…

Closed PRs, commits, loc etc are useless vanity metrics. With ai code you have more loc and NEED more PRs to fix all its slop. In the end you have increased numbers with net negative effect

Most of those studies call this out and try to control for it (edit: "it" here being the usual limitations of LoC and PRs as measures of productivity) where possible. But to your point, no, there is still a strong net positive effect:

> 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.)

Emphasis added. They modeled a way to detect when AI output is being reworked, and still find a 15-20% increase in throughput. Specific timestamp: https://youtu.be/tbDDYKRFjhk?t=590&si=63qBzP6jc7OLtGyk

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#313

Post by delichon »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #16
neom wrote: post #5

Just connect everything folks, we'll proactively read everything, all the time, and you'll be a 10x human, trust us friends, just connect everything...

AI SYSTEM perfect size for put data in to secure! inside very secure and useful data will be useful put data in AI System. Put data in AI System. no problems ever in AI Syste because good Shape and Support for data integration weak of big data. AI system yes a place for a data put data in AI System can trust Sam Altman for giveing good love to data. friend AI. [0] 0 - https://www.tumblr.com/elodieunderglass/186312312…

Bad grammar is now a trust signal, this might work.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#314

Post by reactordev »

Cracks are emerging. Having to remind users of your relevancy with daily meditations is the first sign that you need your engagement numbers up desperately.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#315

Post by Kiro »

chrysoprace wrote: post #302
Kiro wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would be interested to know how you measure your productivity gains though, in an objective way where you're not the victim of bias. I just recently had to rate whether I felt like I got more done by leaning more on Claude Code for a week to do a toy project and while I _feel_ like I was more productive, I was already biased to think so, and so I was a lot more careful with my answer, especially as I had to spend a…

It sounds like you're very productive without AI or that your perceived gains are pretty small. To me, it's such a stark contrast that asking how I measure it is like asking me to objectively verify that a car is faster than walking.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#317

Post by paxys »

jama211 wrote: post #154
xwowsersx wrote: post #13

Google'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 have Gmail and Google calendar etc but haven’t seen any AI features pop up that would be useful to me, am I living under a rock or is Google not capitalising on this advantage properly?

There are plenty of features if you are on the Pro plan, but it's still all the predictable stuff - summarize emails, sort/clean up your inbox, draft a doc, search through docs & drive, schedule appointments. Still pretty useful, but nothing that makes you go "holy shit" just yet.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#318

Post by ycombigators »

miyoji wrote: post #133
moralestapia wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not done" vs "Done" is as objective as it gets.

You obviously have never worked a company that spends time arguing about the "definition of done". It's one of the most subjective topics I know about.

Sounds like a company is not adequately defining what the deliverables are.

Task: Walk to the shops & buy some milk.

Deliverables: 1. Video of walking to the shops (including capturing the newspaper for that day at the local shop) 2. Reciept from local store for milk. 3. Physical bottle of Milk.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#319

Post by citizenkeen »

jsheard wrote: post #76
jasonsb wrote: post #66

Earlier 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.

I have a very big hobby code project I’ve been working on for years.

AI has not made me much more productive at work.

I can only work on my hobby project when I’m tired after the kids go to bed. AI has made me 3x productive there because reviewing code is easier than architecting. I can sense if it’s bad, I have good tests, the requests are pretty manageable (make a new crud page for this DTO using app conventions).

But at work where I’m fresh and tackling hard problems that are 50% business political will? If anything it slows me down.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#320

Post by abraxas »

boc wrote: post #140
swalsh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Blockchain is probably the most useless technology ever invented " Actually AI may be more like blockchain then you give it credit for. Blockchain feels useless to you because you either don't care about or value the use cases it's good for. For those that do, it opens a whole new world they eagerly look forward to. As a coder, it's magical to describe a world, and then to see AI build it. As a copyeditor it may be…

Blockchain is essentially useless. You need legal systems to enforce trust in societies, not code. Otherwise you'll end up with endless $10 wrench attacks until we all agree to let someone else hold our personal wealth for us in a secure, easy-to-access place. We might call it a bank. The end state of crypto is always just a nightmarish dystopia. Wealth isn't created by hoarding digital currency, it's created by prod…

I call blockchain an instantiation of Bostrom's Paperclip Maximizer running on a hybrid human-machine topology.

We are burning through scarce fuel in amounts sufficient to power a small developed nation in order to reverse engineer... one way hashcodes! Literally that is even less value than turning matter into paperclips.

Post reply on HN