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

"Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

correresmidestino.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 408 posts

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#151

Post by kouteiheika »

Legend2440 wrote: post #107
layer8 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s unfortunate because we are seeing more poor translations in all domains, and users suffer from it. It’s part of a general enshittification of things. There are few contexts where low-quality translations don’t constitute a degradation of user experience. Just one amusing example I saw recently: On the Amazon website, a submit button labeled “Go” in English was translated to something which when translated back w…

I think you overestimate human translators. There is a lot of very poor quality human-translated text out there. English translated from Chinese is famous for this. There will never be enough expert-level human translators, and they tend to be very expensive. Machine translation has raised the floor.

> I think you overestimate human translators. There is a lot of very poor quality human-translated text out there.

This.

There was even a big controversy recently with one of the games on Steam where human translators just completely botched and vandalized the translation, mistranslating huge chunks of it and injecting their own personal politics which are not present in the original text (only English was affected; other languages were translated fine apparently): https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2914150/view/5028562...

If you'd get the AI to translate it, even without any editing, it would have done much better job. Just because something's done by a human it doesn't automatically make it good; you still need competent people at the helm, and recent machine translation advances certainly raise the floor on that.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#152

Post by robertnowell »

the version of this skillset that stays employed is "now I translate 10000x more than i could before by managing a fleet of agents. by encoding my experienced taste and judgement into robust evals, I've helped my ai translators be far better than chatgpt on its own, and much more cost effective compared to manual human translation"

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#153

Post by [deleted] »

tombert wrote: post #9

I have no doubt that the writer is better at translating than AI, but I have to say that AI translation has gotten so good that I'm not sure how much longer translation work will be there, or rather it might end up being more about auditing. For example, I just read the Lawrence Ellsworth translation of The Three Musketeers, which I very thoroughly enjoyed. I don't speak or read French, but from my understanding Ells…

[deleted]

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#154

Post by atleastoptimal »

You'd be laughed at if you said that ChatGPT could help you with graduate level mathematics in 2024, but this year, AI models on simple prompts are solving previously unsolved Erdos problems.

It seems silly to imagine that there is some fundamental barrier between human intelligence and AI, and that AI could never do many of the things that humans can do. Inferring intent, gauging sentiments, factoring in cultural values, etc. all the things cited as stuff humans can do but AI can't, AI can currently do if given enough context. But more importantly, all those things aren't magical tasks that can only occur inside a human skull, they are a product of information processing, its just the information processing that has been hard to make computers good at, but so far it appears AI keeps getting better.

I'm all for humans having special value that is not attached to their ability to perform useful work. However denying the abilities of AI models seems to be a common mistake many people are making, and sadly reality catches up to these people before they can emotionally prepare.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#155

Post by chrsw »

xp84 wrote: post #45

The ending is a really powerful point. Most people apparently agree on two things: 1. AI is a great boon for all tasks and specialties we don’t have the skills to do ourselves. Understandable, since (A) we’re ill equipped to see the flaws in its output because it isn’t our area of expertise, and (B) it often can unlock great gains because if we trust it, we then don’t have to pay and wait for humans to do that thing.…

My fear is in the future it won't matter. People will accept slop because while they can be convinced it's not as good as it could be, it's good enough. To them it's good enough because it's fast and cheap not because it's actually good. There won't be any room in the economy for the value human output brings because the economy will rearrange itself around AI and become completely dependent on cheap output, good enough or not.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#156

Post by techpression »

toddmorey wrote: post #135
Aurornis wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why I use AI for all my medical questions and doctors use AI to write software, and we both smirk at the quality the other person is getting from it. There is an interesting third group emerging: People who acknowledge the quality problem, but think they can deal with it by applying more AI to the output. This takes the form of people who spin up a lot of "agents" and give them personalities like security d…

I always imagine the model rolling its silicon eyes when it’s assigned a personality (“you are an expert growth hacker”) at the start of the prompt. Was that ever actually shown to be effective? Is it still?

I feel it helps for the personality aspect, how it handles answers and general vocabulary, but it doesn’t in any way improve skill level, at least that’s my take from building an assistant.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#158

Post by anigbrowl »

olivierestsage wrote: post #75
Drupon wrote: post #14

An honest to god article full of em dashes that's not because it was AI but because it was a human using them as a crutch to get around crafting sentences that flow naturally. Almost brings a tear to my eye.

Em dashes are really good actually and a standard stylistic choice for non-technical writing, particularly outside the US.

They certainly have their place, but are massively overused in contemporary American prose. This might be slight more of an east coast thing, but that's just a subjective impression that I'm not willing to spend time measuring.

To me they come off as faddish, with many writers using them where commas and semicolons would have done just as well. I think their popularity stems from teh fact that provide the sense of a personal aside from the writer, allowing them to be more expressive while clearly delineating the personal or contextual remark from the main flow of the prose. No doubt this works for a lot of readers, but I find it tedious.

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#159

Post by ben_w »

xp84 wrote: post #45

The ending is a really powerful point. Most people apparently agree on two things: 1. AI is a great boon for all tasks and specialties we don’t have the skills to do ourselves. Understandable, since (A) we’re ill equipped to see the flaws in its output because it isn’t our area of expertise, and (B) it often can unlock great gains because if we trust it, we then don’t have to pay and wait for humans to do that thing.…

> 2. AI is a terrible replacement for me - my skills are at such a high level that it’s almost theoretical that it’ll ever be good enough to replace me for 90% of what I get paid to do. It’s a tool at best.

Most? Perhaps it's depression, but I look back at my career and wonder if any code I've ever been paid to write is beyond what current AI can do.

Sure, this leaves me with the non-coding tasks of UX taste, and code review + a few other forms of QA (and, when self-employed, project management, game design, etc.), but man, I'm someone who actually learned to read in part on the Commodore 64 user manual (as in, trying to understand what PEAK and POKE meant concurrent with having "Jack and Jill go up the hill" picture books).

(And no, I'm not claiming LLMs make bug-free code, I see the bugs LLMs make during my code review of their output and some of them are awful, hence "this leaves me with …").

Re: "Don't You Just Upload It to ChatGPT?"

#160

Post by kingkongjaffa »

whazor wrote: post #148
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. Everyone agrees AI can't do their job, so it ends up doing everyone else's. I'm not sure how to formulate it yet but it seems there is some Peter Principle/Gell-Mann Effect corollary that is AI-related we can say here. Perhaps: "AI rises to the level of its users' incompetence." Or: "Confidence in AI output is inversely proportional to one's ability to verify it"

But using AI itself is a job too. It takes effort to correctly prompt, to steer it, to verify it, and to improve the harness.

show me a prompt that is meaningfully expertly crafted beyond just providing Do's, Do not's, task context, and a goal.

> Correctly prompt, to steer it, to verify it, and to improve the harness.

I doubt this a lot. The average AI user is running claude code as the harness, or Codex etc. prompting has no secret incantations, and steer and verify is just knowing what the answer should roughly look like, which is a domain skill, not an AI skill.

Post reply on HN