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

"Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

correresmidestino.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 408 posts

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#141

Post by edude03 »

aaroninsf wrote: post #38

True, and relevant (I live with a professional editor)... yet I immediately think of Ximm's Law: Every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon. Lemma: any statement about AI which uses the word "never" to preclude some feature from future realization is false. Lemma: contemporary implementations have already improved; they're just unevenly distribu…

I think it can't be improved because it's measuring the wrong thing. A junior engineer becomes a senior when they stop being told what code to write and start solving business needs. Therefore often the highest paid engineers aren't the ones who would do the best on leetcode - or SWE bench pro verified.

Maybe AGI is possible and we'll have software defined human intelligence that's completely autonomous but that's not coming in the next slightly better RL trained LLM and if existed likely wouldn't be under our control anyway

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#142

Post by mschild »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #138
Aurornis wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why I use AI for all my medical questions and doctors use AI to write software, and we both smirk at the quality the other person is getting from it. There is an interesting third group emerging: People who acknowledge the quality problem, but think they can deal with it by applying more AI to the output. This takes the form of people who spin up a lot of "agents" and give them personalities like security d…

How did you get over 52,000 karma in under 3 years with no submissions at all? Are you averaging like 2000+ comments a month?

3 pages deep into their comment history only brings me to 5 days ago so probably yes.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#143

Post by lelanthran »

tombert wrote: post #139
lelanthran wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you get to senior level then most of your job probably is not writing code, but planning things out. If they're so good at banging out code now, they're coming for that too, you know.

I don't necessarily disagree, but there's gotta be a name for some kind of "infinite extrapolation" fallacy, where you assume that the current rate of progress will continue indefinitely. That might happen, but I don't think it's implied, at least given literally every other bit of technology that has ever happened in history ever.

> I don't necessarily disagree, but there's gotta be a name for some kind of "infinite extrapolation" fallacy, where you assume that the current rate of progress will continue indefinitely.

I am not assuming they'll continue indefinitely, but it's a small step from writing code to planning out the code to write, and another small step from planning a coding project to planning a software project, etc.

These are all small steps, and because the act of specification + planning paid less than specification + planning + programming, what reason do you have for thinking that specification + planning is valuable enough to keep the salaries the same as specification + planning + programming?

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#145

Post by tombert »

card_zero wrote: post #88
tombert wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the last two paragraphs :)

They say "yes, I admit it, this is all invalid".

No, they are a disclaimer that it's possible that the data isn't conclusive. Not the same thing as saying "it's all invalid".

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#146

Post by gs17 »

toddmorey wrote: post #135
Aurornis wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why I use AI for all my medical questions and doctors use AI to write software, and we both smirk at the quality the other person is getting from it. There is an interesting third group emerging: People who acknowledge the quality problem, but think they can deal with it by applying more AI to the output. This takes the form of people who spin up a lot of "agents" and give them personalities like security d…

I always imagine the model rolling its silicon eyes when it’s assigned a personality (“you are an expert growth hacker”) at the start of the prompt. Was that ever actually shown to be effective? Is it still?

I've always wondered if the go-to should have been prefilling its response with "I am an expert growth leader, and here are my thoughts:".

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#147

Post by robertnowell »

TekMol wrote: post #57

AI isn’t replacing me. Like a toddler, it needs to be constantly coached. Like a toddler, it will grow up. Humans are really bad at noticing trajectories. They see the current situation. They know what the situation was 5 years ago. But for some reason they do not believe that there is a trajectory. They view the present state as the final destination.

head in the sand

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#148

Post by whazor »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #76
xp84 wrote: post #45

The ending is a really powerful point. Most people apparently agree on two things: 1. AI is a great boon for all tasks and specialties we don’t have the skills to do ourselves. Understandable, since (A) we’re ill equipped to see the flaws in its output because it isn’t our area of expertise, and (B) it often can unlock great gains because if we trust it, we then don’t have to pay and wait for humans to do that thing.…

Well said. Everyone agrees AI can't do their job, so it ends up doing everyone else's. I'm not sure how to formulate it yet but it seems there is some Peter Principle/Gell-Mann Effect corollary that is AI-related we can say here. Perhaps: "AI rises to the level of its users' incompetence." Or: "Confidence in AI output is inversely proportional to one's ability to verify it"

But using AI itself is a job too. It takes effort to correctly prompt, to steer it, to verify it, and to improve the harness.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#149

Post by jimbokun »

AStrangeMorrow wrote: post #80
madaxe_again wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My writing used to be littered with them, but I now eschew the em in favour of en, as it has become too strong an anti-shibboleth. I have also taken to being sloppier in my prose, as I’ve had stories rejected for being “written by AI” - when they’re shorts I wrote more than a decade ago. Reworked them to sound like a moron, accepted. Sigh.

I have a similar issue. I tend to have a very “structured” type of writing. Say on slack or Reddit for example. Using markdown formatting. Lists with bulletpoints etc. And I tend to write long detailed explanations, sometimes too long if I am being honest. But now I find myself adding noise and imperfections to my writing (not that it was perfect) to make it more human, which is kinda silly.

The LLMs decided to use you as the model for the pinnacle of human communication style.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#150

Post by jovial_cavalier »

You don't even need to argue that you're better than the AI. The point is that the client could have uploaded it to ChatGPT too. Perhaps they even did, and they didn't like the answer they got. They are sending it to a human because they want a human to do the work. If you were to send back ChatGPT output, that would be fraud.
Post reply on HN