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

GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 235 posts

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#141

Post by FrustratedMonky »

sophiabits wrote: post #64
mojuba wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always, and then hear from the developers that it will get better with each iteration. I need a calculator that is correct 100% of time, not even 99.999%, because otherwise I can't rely on it at all. In other words, the utility of a calculator that is correct only 99% of time is zero, since you can't ev…

I suspect that humans have an accuracy lower than 99.999%, and are similarly capable of producing confidently incorrect results. GPT has a lot of hype and hysteria around it, but demanding 100% accuracy from it is a bit over the top imo. It doesn't need to have 100% accuracy on any arbitrary prompt in order to be a useful and valuable tool.

Yes. WE have a higher standard for computers. But humans produce a ton of bull shit answers. Are we trying to produce an 'answer machine' or a 'human mimic'. Because the bull shit makes it more human. And a wrong answer does not mean it's broken, what goes on in its neural net to produce a confident wrong answer might be similar to our own.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#142

Post by maaanu »

quonn wrote: post #116
mjburgess wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I have. That's largely why I've stopped using it. The time it's taken to rewrite has been larger than not; and worse, it deprives me of understanding the problem i'm solving. So I end up not having thought through the problem and basically having to press delete and type from scratch.

I found it useful for writing unit tests, which really is a stupid brain dead code monkey task.

Really? For me it could not generate meaning full tests, even for the simplest react-components. E.g. it tried to test the display of an error-message in a field in a form. The error message was basically "this is field is required and can't be empty.". It tried to test that, by inserting valid data into the field...

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#143

Post by worldsayshi »

Joeri wrote: post #140
xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using Bing AI instead of Google for a few days to test it out. It gives responses with citations. A few times already it has hallucinated details that aren't on the cited website at all, but that do sound very plausible (for example something about the horns of a bull pointing up when I asked about the etymology of "bullish".) I think it comes down to the fact that most stuff is actually like 90% bullshit s…

It is telling that ChatGPT by training on online discussions hasn’t learned to say “I don’t know”.

I guess the "I don't know"'s are usually silent.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#144

Post by worldsayshi »

mojuba wrote: post #36
bulbosaur123 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it GPT4 or GPT3.5? It spews less bullshit with each new iteration. Matter of time really.

I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always, and then hear from the developers that it will get better with each iteration. I need a calculator that is correct 100% of time, not even 99.999%, because otherwise I can't rely on it at all. In other words, the utility of a calculator that is correct only 99% of time is zero, since you can't ev…

Gpt is not a calculator. I suspect that it could solve calculator problems if it was given a calculator though.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#145

Post by WoodenChair »

Satam wrote: post #106
WoodenChair wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have colleagues, bosses or reports that are correct 100% or the time? 99.999%? I would love colleagues that are 99% accurate, I certainly am not unfortunately. I see this analogy all the time in these comment sections but it's not a very good one. A person is not a tool. One of the great achievements of humanity, and in computing in particular, is that we make tools that are more accurate than we are. I expe…

Except hammers already do not work as expected 100% of the time, as evident by them painfully hitting the hands of the workers in mishaps. Yet we still use them.

> Except hammers already do not work as expected 100% of the time, as evident by them painfully hitting the hands of the workers in mishaps. Yet we still use them.

The hammer did work 100% as expected. It's the human, who is fallible, that hit their hand with the hammer. My analogy stands. We make mistakes, we want tools that do not. LLMs should not be compared to humans, they should be compared to other tools.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#146

Post by coldtea »

he0001 wrote: post #96
coldtea wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also as in a group of people you sometimes agree on specific styles, but I think that ChatGPT won’t adhere to such things, making its code unfamiliar and really hard to follow. ChatGPT wont, but a facade variant specifically trained and marketed for code probably would. It could even had a configuration for coding style, formatting and linting rules, and programming paradigm (more functional, more declarative, inve…

I don’t know, styles are not definable as it’s a style, perhaps it will end up with its own style. Linting is a rule set, so that would be easy. But related to what I’ve seen on how ChatGPT express itself, I’d say it keeps on changing its style. Edit: it seems like it may have some style but still fails to write it accurately[0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35193188

>styles are not definable as it’s a style

Aren't they? I'd say they can be reduced to a number of architectural tendencies (e.g. composition over inheritance, DSL or language-native code), go-to design and code organization patterns, and pure stylistic choices (like variable naming, short or larger functions, etc.)

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#147

Post by BurningFrog »

shanebellone wrote: post #126
auggierose wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew something changed after AlphaGo. Compute could do what we thought only true intelligence can do. So I agree, LLMs are not a black swan. It will change everything, nevertheless. I keep reading these opinions that LLMs are just doing some advanced form of copy paste. Actually, we don't know what they are doing. Are they actually doing some form of modelling and abstraction? Seems likely to me.

"I keep reading these opinions that LLMs are just doing some advanced form of copy paste. Actually, we don't know what they are doing. Are they actually doing some form of modelling and abstraction? Seems likely to me." This is exactly the problem with AI. For business or government, the answer is as important as the methodology employed. A black box does not work for the majority of use cases. Until it can show its…

Humans are also "black boxes" we don't fully understand. It's worked pretty well.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#148

Post by ChatGTP »

xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #134
sirsinsalot wrote: post #29

I asked Chat GPT which antacid medications are contraindicated for some medication I'm on. Easily found through NICE. It made up a severe risk of death taking a very common medicine combo. It was super convincing, even giving information on how long to avoid taking them together. It was pure bullshit. I think as much as hyping the benefits we need to hype the flaws and dangers. If the public at large learn to trust t…

I've been using Bing AI instead of Google for a few days to test it out. It gives responses with citations. A few times already it has hallucinated details that aren't on the cited website at all, but that do sound very plausible (for example something about the horns of a bull pointing up when I asked about the etymology of "bullish".) I think it comes down to the fact that most stuff is actually like 90% bullshit s…

I've said this already today on another comment, but the manual from OpenAI themselves pretty much says the thing is not to be trusted for pretty much anything.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#149

Post by golergka »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #29

I asked Chat GPT which antacid medications are contraindicated for some medication I'm on. Easily found through NICE. It made up a severe risk of death taking a very common medicine combo. It was super convincing, even giving information on how long to avoid taking them together. It was pure bullshit. I think as much as hyping the benefits we need to hype the flaws and dangers. If the public at large learn to trust t…

Stop evaluating tech by misapplying it. ChatGPT is not really good or reliable at factual questions, yes. But it's fantastic at transforming input data that you provide to it.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#150

Post by ChatGTP »

bulbosaur123 wrote: post #33
sirsinsalot wrote: post #29

I asked Chat GPT which antacid medications are contraindicated for some medication I'm on. Easily found through NICE. It made up a severe risk of death taking a very common medicine combo. It was super convincing, even giving information on how long to avoid taking them together. It was pure bullshit. I think as much as hyping the benefits we need to hype the flaws and dangers. If the public at large learn to trust t…

Was it GPT4 or GPT3.5? It spews less bullshit with each new iteration. Matter of time really.

I'd be very careful assuming this, if you read the manual from OpenAI themselves they clearly provide warnings on this. It has become a vary more convincing liar apparently.

That's not me saying it, read the "System Card".

Post reply on HN