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

ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 317 posts

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#101

Post by euroderf »

somberi wrote: post #50
zetazzed wrote: post #17

Damn, I hate to plug products on HN, but I'd say that the New Yorker is the one subscription I've loved maintaining throughout my life. First got it right out of college and appreciate it 20 years later. Everyone is publishing think pieces about ChatGPT - yawn. But only the New Yorker said, hmm, how about if we get frickin' Ted Chiang to write a think piece? (It is predictably very well written.)

I hear you. A few articles a year, such as this one, makes the 70ish dollars I cough up every year, worth it.

I've been tempted to subscribe. But I emailed them trying to find out what the price would be after the trial sub expired. They replied that they could not say.

So it seems obvious (to me at least) that they segment renewals and charge what the market will bear.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#102

Post by [deleted] »

chapium wrote: post #55
bbor wrote: post #14

Ugh I’m beginning to think I’m going to spend the next 6-12 months commenting “no, large language models aren’t supposed to somehow know everything in the world. No, that’s not what they’re designed for. Yes, hooking one up to our long-standing record-of-everything-in-the-world (google’s knowledge graph) is going to be powerful.” It’s getting to point where I need to consider stop going on HN. This is like when my fa…

I’m just searching the comments for novel use cases where its effective. Most articles I’ve read seem like either moral panics or snake oil. I like how it can generate songs and poems based on a prompt. Its not particularly useful, but it is entertaining. It really does seem curated at times, leading me to think this will eventually become a fad or replaced by a more advanced algorithm.

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#103

Post by hackernewds »

hjadal wrote: post #62
msla wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice that the extremists never use paywalls, meaning extremism is allowed to spread unchecked. If respectable newspapers and magazines cared about society, they'd follow suit, and give the extremists some competition.

I think respectable papers would go out of business if they followed suit. They are usually respectable because they dont rely on a outside organisation for funding, but instead rely on creating good journalism people want to pay for.

They also then have less motivation to rely on clicks. Like outlets on both sides have devolved to.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#104

Post by autokad »

chapium wrote: post #55
bbor wrote: post #14

Ugh I’m beginning to think I’m going to spend the next 6-12 months commenting “no, large language models aren’t supposed to somehow know everything in the world. No, that’s not what they’re designed for. Yes, hooking one up to our long-standing record-of-everything-in-the-world (google’s knowledge graph) is going to be powerful.” It’s getting to point where I need to consider stop going on HN. This is like when my fa…

I’m just searching the comments for novel use cases where its effective. Most articles I’ve read seem like either moral panics or snake oil. I like how it can generate songs and poems based on a prompt. Its not particularly useful, but it is entertaining. It really does seem curated at times, leading me to think this will eventually become a fad or replaced by a more advanced algorithm.

its no fad. I use to spend an hour going over an email to management. make it less technical, make it sound nicer / polite, etc. now I can take a sentence and say 'make this more succinct. ok, but take that and make it more polite, great thanks'.

I even used it for project proposals. 'write me a 1 page document for this idea'. and then I just use the scaffolding from there. its a huge time saver.

also you are notn seeing the bigger picture. "I like how it can generate songs and poems based on a prompt. Its not particularly useful, but it is entertaining. " do you realize how this is going to make writing (books, songs, tv shows, movies) so much easier?

I had a dream, all I did was give chatgpt the basics of the dream and I said make this into a short story. the results weren't bad, its definitely something one can work with. I think content creation on platforms is about to explode.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#105

Post by pavlov »

PaulHoule wrote: post #93
msla wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this article is the best the New Yorker offers now, I'm glad I don't subscribe. It used to have high-quality articles, certainly.

I thought the author was uncharacteristically perceptive for a reporter. Yann LeCun or Geoff Hinton couldn't have come up with a better analogy.

The author is not a random reporter but Ted Chiang, a well-known science fiction author. The movie "Arrival" is based on a story by him.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#106

Post by PaulHoule »

hackernewds wrote: post #98
PaulHoule wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the author was uncharacteristically perceptive for a reporter. Yann LeCun or Geoff Hinton couldn't have come up with a better analogy.

Analogy of?

"Blurry JPEG" for how ChatGPT "compresses" character-based knowledge into vectors. That "compression" process gives ChatGPT an ability to generalize because it learns statistics (unlike JPEG) but like JPEG it is a lossy process.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#107

Post by CPLX »

bbor wrote: post #74
CPLX wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is like when my father excitedly told his friends about the coming computer revolution in the 90s and they responded “well it can’t do my dishes or clean the house, they’re just a fad!” Makes me want screaaaaam Did the computer revolution make your father’s life better? Serious question.

Hmm. I’d say definitely yes. I mean we are on the internet right now, presumably across many km of distance. Do you disagree?

I have mixed feelings about it.

I do believe with certainty that there are many people, millions, whose life has been made substantially worse by the invention of ubiquitous computing devices.

Probably the minority. But I’d say his questions (ie “What’s in it for me?”) are excellent ones to pose in the face of new technology.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#108

Post by hackernewds »

bbor wrote: post #21
ElevenLathe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to correct every wrong thing you read. In fact you will probably feel much better if you don't ever do it at all, or at least take a break for while.

Very true :). It doesn’t help that this isn’t exactly a little blog post, it’s a popular New Yorker feature…

Still that is what the downvote button for. With a comment extolling why your opinion is further valid than the net points that support it, seems an exercise in ego that is not beneficial to either you or the community.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#109

Post by jraph »

wbobeirne wrote: post #95
freediver wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad that this kind of writing is married to 31(!) ads/trackers on that page. Can the journalism like this really not survive without all that crap?

They sell the perfect solution to this: a magazine.

It's not perfect because it's one time paper that takes spaces or goes to waste quickly. But it's indeed a good solution nonetheless.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#110

Post by o_____________o »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #18
bbor wrote: post #14

Ugh I’m beginning to think I’m going to spend the next 6-12 months commenting “no, large language models aren’t supposed to somehow know everything in the world. No, that’s not what they’re designed for. Yes, hooking one up to our long-standing record-of-everything-in-the-world (google’s knowledge graph) is going to be powerful.” It’s getting to point where I need to consider stop going on HN. This is like when my fa…

You don't need to correct every wrong thing you read. In fact you will probably feel much better if you don't ever do it at all, or at least take a break for while.

When my pedantic keyboard warrior gears start turning, I think about the same xkcd a sibling commenter posted.

But I've been struggling with the recent tsunami of openly anti-intellectual, alt-everything pseudoscience in the US. I recently pleaded with my sister to read The Demon-Haunted World by Sagan.

There's something important in patient advocacy of truth.

Post reply on HN