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

201–210 of 408 posts

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

#201

Post by balefulboy »

jaggederest wrote: post #182
atleastoptimal wrote: post #154

You'd be laughed at if you said that ChatGPT could help you with graduate level mathematics in 2024, but this year, AI models on simple prompts are solving previously unsolved Erdos problems. It seems silly to imagine that there is some fundamental barrier between human intelligence and AI, and that AI could never do many of the things that humans can do. Inferring intent, gauging sentiments, factoring in cultural va…

Fable has really spooked me, honestly. It's another big jump, but not in the actual coding. I was pretty comfortable with the "you do the implementation, I do the meta work and steering", and ... no steering required, no meta work required. Here's the backlog, let me know when it's complete, I guess I'm going to go touch grass until I have to review and refine... probably tomorrow? Reminds me of the first time I saw…

Greentext is eh. Very formulaic, in fact very similar to the bottomless pit one, which I'd argue is better because of it's absurdity. I have to ask, did you mention the older GPT version to fable in the prompt?

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

#202

Post by xboxnolifes »

robertnowell wrote: post #126

unfortunately this person will soon be unemployed. not because their skills are no longer relevant, but because they are taking a principled stance defending now irrelevant skills.

Close. They will be unemployed because AI be "good enough" and companies won't care about it being better. Nothing they mentioned was really about principles. Everything was about quality output. Too bad companies dont care about quality.

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

#203

Post by Sharlin »

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?

There was a time when stuff like "Unreal Engine, trending on ArtStation, 8K resolution" actually worked when prompting image gen models because such labels actually correlated with higher-quality images in the web-crawled training datasets available back then.

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

#204

Post by dfee »

ozgung wrote: post #192
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.…

I feel like I am the only one thinking AI is actually much better than me in the things I'm supposed to do well. I feel like that for years now, so it's not about the latest generation of models. I can't imagine a single thing I can really compete with an AI at this stage. I am not sure if I am under-skilled or others are overconfident. Maybe people who feel like me don't say this out laud.

agree. it's strange reading the loud voices that are counter to my lived experience. llms just have seemingly infinite depth - or can at least debug and execute without fatigue.

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

#205

Post by cwillu »

spudlyo wrote: post #163
toddmorey wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It reminds me when people would stuff their image prompts with things like NO DEFORMED FINGERS.

Instructions unclear, digitized subject into a mass of fingers.

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

#206

Post by soperj »

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?

They spin up agents, and then give them roles like commenter, and director of quality for the commenter. Although I'm unsure how the director helps since I've never seen one do actual work.

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

#208

Post by jubilanti »

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.

> Like a toddler, it will grow up. Humans are really bad at noticing trajectories.

Yourself included??

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

#209

Post by arjie »

kube-system wrote: post #194
arjie wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a bridge sign that says "No entry for heavy vehicles" is unlikely to now read "I am out of office for the next 2 weeks" in Welsh: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/nov/01/5

Now instead it will say, in Welsh "Switched to Opus 4.8 - Fable has safety measures that flag messages on most cybersecurity or biology topics. They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capability in other areas sooner, and we're working to refine them."

Hahaha that’s pretty funny. But in their defence perhaps if you didn’t want a tall tale you shouldn’t have asked for a Fable? ;)

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

#210

Post by Marsymars »

mapmeld wrote: post #5

I think it's an interesting perspective, because translation is one of the jobs that I (a) hear is the first to lose work due to AI, and (b) often used as an example of "acceptable" AI by people who are skeptics of LLMs and AI-generated art.

Well it's more than acceptable to translate e.g. web pages for reading, but it's not something you'd want to professionally publish.

Kinda conceptually similar to how typos and grammatical mistakes aren't a big deal if you're shooting off a quick text or email, but publishing if you've got typos in your advertising copy, in your resume, on your medicine label, etc. it's a real bad look.

Post reply on HN