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

Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

atomic14.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#131

Post by yunyu »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #32
codingdave wrote: post #27

I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I'm simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened. ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn't know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a s…

Asking it to convert 32 to binary was a bit of an eye opener. It gave me multiple completely incorrect ways of doing so (resulting in 0100 or something each time) despite me informing it it was wrong. It'd say things like 'the 24th place, then the 23rd place are 0's which just made no sense in terms of the query (I suppose technically correct if you really want to pad left) - but I had to think about it because it wa…

Most LLMs are crippled at tasks regarding character level manipulation because of how the inputs are tokenized (words and numbers are split into common substrings rather than the original characters, 101 -> “10” + “1” vs “1” + “0” + “1”).

If you tried this binary conversion task with a model that takes in raw bytes (for instance, ByT5) it would perform almost perfectly. In GPT’s case, there’s a trade off between having a long context window vs being good at character level tasks, and OpenAI picked the former.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#132

Post by yesenadam »

srge wrote: post #81
gsatic wrote: post #33

The only people whose minds this is "blowing" are people who have never had to build or maintain question answering systems. ChatGPT is like having a bunch of 8 year olds who know how to use Google hanging around. Sure you can use them, and their skills might surprise u every now and then, but that has nothing to do with how much time you are going to waste on the answers they will get wrong.

I want to be in this thread when it becomes the new infamous Dropbox thread

Oh please, comparing ChatGPT to Dropbox is like comparing a tiny little puddle to a vast ocean. Dropbox was a revolutionary product that changed the way we store and share files, while ChatGPT is just a mediocre language model with no real-world impact. You must be living under a rock if you think they're even in the same league.

> Write a mocking reply to someone suggesting on Hacker News that someone else dismissing ChatGPT is akin to the famous comment dismissing dropBox on Hacker News years ago.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#133

Post by Jensson »

pydry wrote: post #111
Jensson wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT is wrong about basically everything though as long as you give it the right prompts. It has all the right answers but also all the wrong answers, that makes it much dumber than you who is reliably correct about some things at least.

>ChatGPT is wrong about basically everything though as long as you give it the right prompts. So is my Uncle. This is very much a "human level intelligence" problem.

I really doubt that. The value of a human is what they are right about, not what they are wrong about, as long as your uncle knows some area fairly well he is valuable to society and worth his salary. Human intelligence is the sum of such humans, each human is wrong about a lot of stuff, but add some bits of correctness, and the sum of humans is extremely accurate at solving problems, or we wouldn't have computers or cars or rockets. ChatGPT doesn't know any area well, if you know the area then you can fiddle with ChatGPT until it gives you what you want but it isn't an expert on anything on its own.

ChatGPT is impressive at generating text, but it doesn't generate better information than GPT3, it just hides its ignorance better behind more political/vague speech so it is harder to find its errors/information. To me that is regression, not progress, the results looks better but are harder to parse correctly for humans.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#134

Post by watoc »

gsatic wrote: post #33

The only people whose minds this is "blowing" are people who have never had to build or maintain question answering systems. ChatGPT is like having a bunch of 8 year olds who know how to use Google hanging around. Sure you can use them, and their skills might surprise u every now and then, but that has nothing to do with how much time you are going to waste on the answers they will get wrong.

What would impress you? A system that could answer any questions better than any current experts? Ok it's not always completely accurate and sometime plain wrong but still looks really impressive to me.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#135

Post by 10xDev »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #40
codingdave wrote: post #27

I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I'm simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened. ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn't know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a s…

Not yet. But the speed of development seem to be increasing, same with something like Midjourney.

No matter how much the speed of development increases, the problem becomes significantly harder with a limit to how much transformer based models can do. There is a reason why you aren't seeing GPT-4 despite the rapid progress we saw with previous iterations. Or just take a look at the speed of RL development and how that turned out.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#136

Post by hnbad »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #32
codingdave wrote: post #27

I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I'm simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened. ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn't know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a s…

Asking it to convert 32 to binary was a bit of an eye opener. It gave me multiple completely incorrect ways of doing so (resulting in 0100 or something each time) despite me informing it it was wrong. It'd say things like 'the 24th place, then the 23rd place are 0's which just made no sense in terms of the query (I suppose technically correct if you really want to pad left) - but I had to think about it because it wa…

Frankly that's like asking a calculator to write you an essay. It's simply not the right tool for the job if you want to do mathematics. It doesn't actually understand mathematics or logics, it just knows patterns in its training data and how to apply them to input. It can go through the motions of answering your question but it can't know whether the answer makes sense.

I think no matter how much breathless media outlets and futurist fanboys like it, we need to stop pretending conversational AI is "generalized AI" just because it can perform language. It's a fully automated Dunning-Kruger machine. That's amazing a lot of the time, but it's a specialized tool with specialist applications.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#137

Post by apexalpha »

codingdave wrote: post #27

I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I'm simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened. ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn't know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a s…

I don't know. I asked it to write a simple Bash script to monitor a folder for certain files and then execute logic on them.

It gave me a flawless Bash script purely from my description.

If that isn't impressive I don't know what it.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#138

Post by xtracto »

chimprich wrote: post #107

How come the technical details of ChatGPT are (apparently) a secret? I tried asking the model about its architecture and it told me that the details were proprietary. Assuming the model was correct in its understanding, isn't this counter to what OpenAI are trying to do?

OpenAI is not open at all. Don't be fooled by the name.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#139

Post by hallidave »

indigochill wrote: post #82
kristiandupont wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost more astonishing to me to see reactions like yours. I showed it to a friend and she too was unimpressed because it gave answers in her field (finance) that were "good, but sortof basic". So we have here a chat bot that pretty much passes for a human and some people react with "meh, it's not a genius". It makes me think of Tim Urbans chart: https://imgs.search.brave.com/YR7qt28AjhAeXSr_qvSmJubqIKJW5S...

I like GPT-3 a lot, but there's an important distinction between "plausible conversation" and "trustworthy answers". ChatGPT is probably best in the world in the "plausible conversation" category. But you might say ChatGPT is like talking to a human who actually knows nothing about finance but doesn't let that stop them (and for that matter, if you wanted to anthropomorphize it, you could say part of the problem is C…

One scenario where the "believes anything" might be useful is to use ChatGPT to get alternate takes on opinions. If you have some great idea or strongly held opinion, get ChatGPT to take the other side of the argument and poke holes in it. The creative but inaccurate characteristics of ChatGPT are less of a problem in this case but it might bring out alternatives you haven't considered.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#140

Post by FormerBandmate »

gumby wrote: post #53

Within the year I predict innumerable marketeers will type a sentence (“our blue baseball cap will help you get laid”), which is then expanded by some LLM into a full sales pitch, then compressed while being transmitted, then decompressed for display in a browser that automatically summarizes it into a single sentence (“advertiser wants you to buy hat”). Perhaps it will be ad block and reader mode that boil out the p…

The ad begins with a shot of a crowded party, with people laughing and having a good time. The camera then focuses on a group of friends standing together, with one of them wearing our blue baseball cap.

The person wearing the cap is shown smiling and laughing, looking confident and happy as they interact with their friends. The camera zooms in on the cap, highlighting its blue color and the logo on the front.

As the ad continues, we see the person wearing the cap in different situations at the party - talking to a group of people, dancing with their friends, and generally enjoying themselves.

Meanwhile, a voiceover begins, saying: "When you put on our blue baseball cap, you'll feel the difference. You'll feel more confident, more attractive, and more in control. Whether you're at a party, at work, or on a date, our blue baseball cap will help you look and feel your best."

The ad then cuts to a shot of the person wearing the cap looking directly into the camera, smiling confidently. The voiceover continues: "Put on our blue baseball cap and feel the difference. Because when you look good, you feel good."

The ad ends with the tagline "Put on our blue baseball cap and feel the difference" appearing on screen, followed by a shot of the cap and the logo.

Post reply on HN