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

251–260 of 408 posts

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

#251

Post by projektfu »

madaxe_again wrote: post #65
ixtli wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish more people had casual exposure to professional translators. Its a deeply important, vanishingly small segment of the human population and has been this way for at least many thousands of years. Also, it will continue to be!

I’ve a friend who does simultaneous interpretation at the UN and she’s just… good god, how do you even do that. Oh, and she does it in six languages. And here I am, brain the size of a galaxy, and I fumble my way through every language I speak other than English. Serious respect for the linguists.

I guess I should have figured Marvin would be here on HN, feeling sorry for himself.

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

#252

Post by jenniferhooley »

Kiro wrote: post #217
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

> Everyone agrees AI can't do their job, so it ends up doing everyone else's. In real life I haven't met a single programmer who doesn't think AI can do their job. If someone would actually say that I would immediately think they have hubris and overestimate their skills.

You mean theoretically in the future? Or right now?

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

#253

Post by r0m4n0 »

I say it’s a simple value proposition.

A few examples

Audio book narration. Human narrators are paid a seemingly ridiculous amount of money to literally read a book out loud. We have the tech to replace them, it’s actually pretty dang good, and it is substantially cheaper to do with computers. It’s pretty accurate too. In the audio book industry though, if you take your book seriously you have a real person read it. The best one you can find that you like. Readers enjoy hearing good narrators and the total value one narrator can bring is very high mostly because the value scales well.

Another real world example that doesn’t scale well, call centers. Customers want humans, but execs have tried to replace them with automation in every way possible. The margins of a business get squeezed because the value of the human touch doesn’t scale well in this case.

Translation falls a bit in the middle. I’m sure ChatGPT is good enough for some people. If you are a restaurant and need to understand what you are ordering at the local authentic Italian restaurant it’ll do the job. If you have a bad food allergy? Maybe not, you are willing to pay for accuracy because that’s what a human brings

So the answer to the question posed in the article, can’t you just upload it to ChatGPT? Maybe yea maybe no

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

#254

Post by jenniferhooley »

kingkongjaffa wrote: post #160
whazor wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

show me a prompt that is meaningfully expertly crafted beyond just providing Do's, Do not's, task context, and a goal. > Correctly prompt, to steer it, to verify it, and to improve the harness. I doubt this a lot. The average AI user is running claude code as the harness, or Codex etc. prompting has no secret incantations, and steer and verify is just knowing what the answer should roughly look like, which is a domai…

I feel like you don't have any friends who make software but don't know how to code.

Yes, they do make software now - whereas it was impossible before. You may be absolutely shocked at how bad LLM code can be when prompted from a noncoder. How buggy, and how absolutely rife with security problems it can have. I honestly don't know how they can get LLMs to write such bad software - but somehow they can. This is from people who have been vibe coding for 3 years straight btw (huge amount of time p/day).

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

#256

Post by 627467 »

arjie wrote: post #122
layer8 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s unfortunate because we are seeing more poor translations in all domains, and users suffer from it. It’s part of a general enshittification of things. There are few contexts where low-quality translations don’t constitute a degradation of user experience. Just one amusing example I saw recently: On the Amazon website, a submit button labeled “Go” in English was translated to something which when translated back w…

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

This story is so great because it shows how robotic are so many jobs and tasks. Like, what happened in the reciepient mind to not consider whether the reply was appropriate or not? Did the almost instant response not hint at an automated email? Or the lack of any other content of the email (a greeting, something)? Or maybe people send so many emails or is doing so many thing they switch off certain parts of the brain?

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

#257

Post by thi2 »

I recently saw a video showing the french to german translation of a french McDonald's terminal. The translations were hilarious bad, like old school google translate bad.

Maybe McDonalds is big enough to not care about their reputation, maybe they are happy about the free clout from people making fun of them but they certainly chose to cheap out on translations.

https://www.tiktok.com/@denneshow/video/7522160205501566230

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

#258

Post by notsirius »

Kiro wrote: post #217
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

> Everyone agrees AI can't do their job, so it ends up doing everyone else's. In real life I haven't met a single programmer who doesn't think AI can do their job. If someone would actually say that I would immediately think they have hubris and overestimate their skills.

are you saying that all of the programmers you’ve met in real life have automated their work away and are coasting while waiting for their bosses to fire them…?

…if not, they’ve found developer work that ai can’t do yet, no?

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

#259

Post by thi2 »

karakoram wrote: post #215

Safe to say OP just does NOT like AI https://correresmidestino.com/sorry-i-was-busy-unfucking-my-... Poor woman should really look into pivoting her career or finding a different way of making money. Truth be told, her industry/career is not going to get better. Consistent work will just not fall from the sky. Being bitter will not improve her situation. Even organizations like UN/OECD are looking into implementing A…

I wonder when this is posted about your or my profession.

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

#260

Post by eqmvii »

throw-the-towel wrote: post #199
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…

> People who acknowledge the quality problem, but think they can deal with it by applying more AI to the output. Brute Force: if it doesn't work, you're just not using enough. What if they're right though?

I've seen it turn right in business contexts. Sometimes you can even lower your standard of "good enough" and find quantity has a quality all its own.

But it requires taste and engineering to do it right, and on the right things. It'll be an interesting few years.

Post reply on HN