Marijuana ilegal
"Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
301–310 of 408 posts
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#302unfortunately 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.
Exactly, companies and even NGOs/charities that might be past clients of hers will only look at costs, not her experience.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#303This is just about the worst career you could be in right now. Of course people are just going to upload it to ChatGPT. Processing text is its forte. This person is in the first stage of grief (denial); artists are several stages ahead. Most customers are not going to care about the difference in translation quality unless it's in a regulated sector.
[deleted]
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#304The 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.…
> 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…
> 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.
That's the entire big tech's business strategy right now.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#305Earlier 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.
I did something different. Instead of describing the image, I described the artist. Made that artist in Ubermensch. Then asked AI to draw the image from his point of view. It worked fabulously.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#306The 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.…
We should create a generalized version of "Gell-Mann Amnesia". This applies not just to fields of study. But also to time and space. We read history as if the person who wrote the history book has perfect knowledge.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#307You'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…
Spicy... I giggled.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s been basically the same for 3 years now. Are you sure we’re the ones who can’t see trends?
Your experiences must be much different from mine. Three years ago, AI was barely able to provide sort-of reliable command completion. Two years ago, it could extrapolate a single function from a docstring - but the docstring had to be so verbose that it wasn't practical to use in that way. A year ago, I was tinkering with Devin to try to find a way to get it to reliably implement small, isolated features from verbos…
It sounds like our experiences are different. My software work isn’t on products where code can be disposable, since it affects people’s lives in material ways. I’m not sure why you’re launching fleets of agents at home, either.
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#309Hey guys,
I just found out you were discussing my article, so obviously I had to come here. ;-)
I’ll take the time to read the thread properly because, hey, you took the time to read my article. Also, I genuinely enjoy reading and I’m curious to see what you think about AI.
The anecdote in the article is real, by the way. I only changed her title.
With AI, I went from “surely this won’t affect me” to “AI is dumb” — no, I was dumb, I just didn’t know how to prompt it — and now I’m at the “how can I make it work for me?” stage, while still hoping employers, clients and, well, the entire world realize it’s NOT a magic button.
It’s crazy how unreliable it can be. Sure, it can translate in the sense that it can give you an idea of what was said. But that doesn’t mean it’s good. I could give a million examples...
Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"
#310Earlier 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?
From what I've heard, personas give a greater chance that the LLM will answer confidently.. and also a greater chance it'll hallucinate something when the data is sparse. Supposedly "grounding" the personas on real documents/web searches is the best approach. Anecdotal though.