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

Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

holovaty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 451 posts

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#131

Post by exe34 »

suzzer99 wrote: post #53
kragen wrote: post #30

I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works. Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does…

> Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. IMO this has always been the killer use case for AI—from Google Maps to Grammarly. I discovered Grammarly at the very last phase of writing my book. I accepted maybe 1/3 of its suggestions, which is pretty damn good considering my book had already been edited by me dozens of times AND professionally copy-edited. But if I'd have accepted all of Gram…

I will never use grammarly, not matter how good they get. They've interrupted too many videos for me to let it pass.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#132

Post by exe34 »

plemer wrote: post #97
normie3000 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with passive?

Passive voice often adds length, impedes flow, and subtracts the useful info of who is doing something. Examples: * Active - concise, complete info: The manager approved the proposal. * Passive - wordy, awkward: The proposal was approved by the manager. * Passive - missing info: The proposal was approved. [by who?] Most experienced writers will use active unless they have a specific reason not to, e.g., to emphasize…

My favourite: "a decision was made to...".

It means "I decided to do this, but I don't have the balls to admit it."

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#133

Post by bredren »

ahstilde wrote: post #2

This is called product-channel fit. It's great the writer recognized how to capture the demand from a new acquisition channel.

Is related to solutions engineering, which IIUC focuses on customizations / adapters / data wrangling for individual (larger) customers?

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#134

Post by b112 »

kragen wrote: post #67
afavour wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective that’s fascinatingly upside down thinking that leads to you asking to lose your job. AI is going to get the hang of coding to fill in the spaces (i.e. the part you’re doing) long before it’s able to intelligently design an API. Correct API design requires a lot of contextual information and forward planning for things that don’t exist today. Right now it’s throwing spaghetti at the wall and you’re…

Maybe. So far it seems to be a lot better at creative idea generation than at writing correct code, though apparently these "agentic" modes can often get close enough after enough iteration. (I haven't tried things like Cursor yet.) I agree that it's also not currently capable of judging those creative ideas, so I have to do that.

This sort of discourse really grinds my gears. The framing of it, the conceptualization.

It's not creative at all, any more than taking the sum of text on a topic, and throwing a dart at it. It's a mild, short step beyond a weighted random, and certainly not capable of any real creativity.

Myriads of HN enthusiasts often chime in here "Are humans any more creative" and other blather. Well, that's a whataboutism, and doesn't detract from the fact that creative does not exist in the AI sphere.

I agree that you have to judge its output.

Also, sorry for hanging my comment here. Might seem over the top, but anytime I see 'creative' and 'AI', I have all sorts of dark thoughts. Dark, brooding thoughts with a sense of deep foreboding.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#135

Post by School-Cotton »

brookst wrote: post #126
School-Cotton wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You used passive voice in the very first sentence of your comment. Rewriting “the points already made” to “the points people have already made” would not have improved it.

Thats not passive voice. Passive voice is painfully boring to read is active. The preamble can be read like “however”, and is unnecessary; what a former editor of mine called “throat-clearing words”.

Why isn’t it passive voice?

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#136

Post by carlosjobim »

dontlikeyoueith wrote: post #106
carlosjobim wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that it doesn't matter. If they're not customers it doesn't matter at all what they think. People get false ideas all the time of what kind of services a business might or might not offer.

> If they're not customers it doesn't matter at all what they think That kind of thinking is how you never get new customers and eventually fail as a business.

It is the kind of thinking that almost all businesses have. You have to focus on the actual products and services which you provide and do a good job at it, not chase after any and every person with an opinion.

Down voters here on HN seem to live in a egocentric fantasy world, where every human being in the outside world live to serve them. But the reality is that business owners and leaders spend their whole day thinking about how to please their customers and their potential customers. Not other random people who might be misinformed.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#138

Post by swalsh »

thih9 wrote: post #137

What made ChatGPT think that this feature is supported? And a follow up question - is that the direction SEO is going to take?

Id guess the answer is gpt4o is an outdated model that's not as anchored in reality as newer models. It's pretty rare for me to see sonnet or even o3 just outright tell me plausible but wrong things.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#139

Post by IggleSniggle »

exe34 wrote: post #132
plemer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passive voice often adds length, impedes flow, and subtracts the useful info of who is doing something. Examples: * Active - concise, complete info: The manager approved the proposal. * Passive - wordy, awkward: The proposal was approved by the manager. * Passive - missing info: The proposal was approved. [by who?] Most experienced writers will use active unless they have a specific reason not to, e.g., to emphasize…

My favourite: "a decision was made to...". It means "I decided to do this, but I don't have the balls to admit it."

That's funny, I always thought that meant, "my superior told me I had to do this obviously stupid thing but I'm not going to say my superior was the one who decided this obviously stupid thing." Only occasionally, that is said in a tongue-and-cheek way to refer directly to the speaker as the "superior in charge of the decision."

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#140

Post by horsawlarway »

exe34 wrote: post #132
plemer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passive voice often adds length, impedes flow, and subtracts the useful info of who is doing something. Examples: * Active - concise, complete info: The manager approved the proposal. * Passive - wordy, awkward: The proposal was approved by the manager. * Passive - missing info: The proposal was approved. [by who?] Most experienced writers will use active unless they have a specific reason not to, e.g., to emphasize…

My favourite: "a decision was made to...". It means "I decided to do this, but I don't have the balls to admit it."

That's funny because I read this entirely differently (somewhat dependent on context)

"A decision was made to..." is often code for "The current author didn't agree with [the decision that was made] but it was outside their ability to influence"

Often because they were overruled by a superior, or outvoted by peers.

Post reply on HN