You know we’re doomed when half the comments here are taking this seriously, and not as the satire it clearly is (1KB of state? come on people) Props to the OP for showing once again how lightheaded everybody gets while gently inhaling the GPT fumes…
I'd assume everyone else is also taking this as satire. There's no way any business will handle business logic to a black box.
GPT is all you need for the back end
101–110 of 278 posts
Re: GPT is all you need for the back end
#102Obviously a sensationalised title, but it's a neat illustration of how you'd apply the language models of the future to real tasks.
Re: GPT is all you need for the back end
#103Re: GPT is all you need for the back end
#104Someone has to ask... What does LLM mean?
Re: GPT is all you need for the back end
#105Yes I could do that. I could indeed invoke something that requires god-knows how many tensor cores, vram, not to mention the power requirements of all that hardware, in order to power a simple CRUD App. Or, I could not do that, and instead have it done by a sub-100-lines python script, running on a battery powered Pi.
I mean, I could think of thousands of apps which amount to LLMs are not perfect, and can't enforce a guaranteed logical flow - however I wouldn't be surprised if this changes within the next ~3 years. A lot of low effort CRUD/analytics/data transformation work could be automated.
Re: GPT is all you need for the back end
#106The description in this link puts some really high hopes on the ability of AI to simply "figure out" what you want with little input. In reality, it will give you something that sorta kinda looks like what you want if you squint but falls immediately flat the moment you need to put it into an actual production (or even testing) environment.
Re: GPT is all you need for the back end
#107Re: GPT is all you need for the back end
#108This sounds like a nightmare lmao. Can you imagine trying to debug a system like this? Backend work is trawling through thousands of lines of carefully thought-out code trying to figure out where the bug is—I can't fathom trying to work on a large system where the logic just makes itself up as it goes.
https://robswc.substack.com/p/chatgpt-is-inadvertently-spamm...
On a _much_ smaller scale though.
Re: GPT is all you need for the back end
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
The closer we seem to get the farther we actually are. We're far away from AGI, if we even can reach it with our current approaches, but the latest iterations of "AI" are really good at making people believe it'll be there in 2 years
ChatGPT is great at pretending it knows its sh*t.
I asked about a specific Dutch book, ChatGPT was wrong about the author (it was another author born a century later). I corrected it but got told that the two authors were the same and it was a pseudonym.
I ask the birthdate of the correct author. It gave me relatively correct answer with date of birth and death.
I then asked about the birthdate of the wrong author. It told me again a, relatively correct answer, indeed he was born long after the other author died.
I asked ChatGPT how it could be that the dates differed. It told me that it is very usual for an author to go by a pseudonym.
I told it it was wrong. They are different authors living in different centuries . But it stubbornly refused to accept it, teaching me again that it is perfectly common for authors to go by two different names.
edit: Just to add when asked for a description of the book it gave me a very believable summary, which was total nonsense. This is what really disturbed me about ChatGPT. Though I am very impressed by the fact that we now have a system that is very good at parsing human language. Something which was long thought to be impossible. Combining that strength with an, actual, datasource would be the only way forward in my opinion.
Re: GPT is all you need for the back end
#110This sounds like a nightmare lmao. Can you imagine trying to debug a system like this? Backend work is trawling through thousands of lines of carefully thought-out code trying to figure out where the bug is—I can't fathom trying to work on a large system where the logic just makes itself up as it goes.