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

OpenAI Codex

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 181 posts

Re: OpenAI Codex

#161

Post by FeepingCreature »

riku_iki wrote: post #131
maxwells-daemon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the "math test" video. Given the question: "Jane has 9 balloons. 6 are green and the rest are blue. How many balloons are blue?" The model outputs: "jane_balloons = 9; green_balloons = 6; blue_balloons = jane_balloons - green_balloons; print(blue_balloons)" That seems like a good justification of a (very simple) step-by-step reasoning process!

chances are high that something similar was in training set, and model approximated it.

This goes for humans too. Ultimately, "something similar was in the training set" is semantically indistinguishable from "having a rich generalizable conceptual toolbox".

Re: OpenAI Codex

#162

Post by FeepingCreature »

naresh_xai wrote: post #155
randallsquared wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking 11Mbps [1] as the raw uncompressed incoming data, and assuming 16 hours of waking environment consumption on average (likely high for children), a 13yo has taken in less than 400 TB of information (I used 11 * 60 * 60 * 16 * 365 * 13 / 8.) That's... surprisingly low. [1] https://www.britannica.com/science/information-theory/Physio...

Are we still limiting to visual cues and not the auditory,smell,taste,touch data which we get exposed to?

Visual input is so dense it's basically not worth tracking the other senses from a data rate pov.

Re: OpenAI Codex

#163

Post by GistNoesis »

wrinkl3 wrote: post #135
GistNoesis wrote: post #50

Can I use this to write solidity contracts ?

That's about as advisable as asking it to write firmware for a pacemaker. Smart contracts are some of the most delicate codebases - even a tiny bug can cause you to lose a lot of money. With a model like this bugs are very likely, especially in such a niche domain.

I agree that at first it seems to be a bad idea, but the more I think about it, the more I think it makes for a great test case to prove the AI is robust enough and that it can be trusted for real life scenarios. It also feels kind of inevitable.

It seems like a safe playground, maybe it will lose a few tokens, but if they are no legal consequences, who cares ? The best place to move fast and break things, and with great reward potential.

If I take some freelancer to write them what's telling me that they are not already using something like codex or copilot. It's like when a factory release its used water in the river nearby. Maybe we shouldn't drink from the river anymore, but it would be better to test the water the factory release to make sure it's OK.

Re: OpenAI Codex

#164

Post by blueblisters »

Vermeulen wrote: post #10

A warning to devs building on OpenAI APIs: We spent months developing a chatbot using GPT3 for our game and released a video showcasing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnuSQvoroJo&t=264s Afterwards OpenAI then added GPT3 chatbot guidelines disallowing basically anything like this. We were in communication with them beforehand, but they decided later that any sort of free form chatbot was dangerous. What they allo…

If GTA 6 doesn't have chatbots, I will be very disappointed. This has widened the possible level of immersion in action-adventure games and RPGs immensely.

Re: OpenAI Codex

#166

Post by mszcz »

cgio wrote: post #129
mszcz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think different kind of dangerous, not the SkyNet stuff. The first idea that popped into my mind is below. I know, it's dark but... 8 year old to AI: "my parents won't let me watch TV, what do I do?". AI: "stab them, they'll be too busy to forbid you". Then again the same thing can be said by a non-AI. My thinking is that you'd be talking to an actual average person. I'm not so sure that that is such a good thing.

The scary irony is that you just posted a training sample for a future AI.

You're right! And that's kinda my point. I can see other dangers of using GPT-3 that stem from assholes like me posting things on the Internet without thinking about literally everything they can be used for.

Re: OpenAI Codex

#167

Post by BeFlatXIII »

cgio wrote: post #129
mszcz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think different kind of dangerous, not the SkyNet stuff. The first idea that popped into my mind is below. I know, it's dark but... 8 year old to AI: "my parents won't let me watch TV, what do I do?". AI: "stab them, they'll be too busy to forbid you". Then again the same thing can be said by a non-AI. My thinking is that you'd be talking to an actual average person. I'm not so sure that that is such a good thing.

The scary irony is that you just posted a training sample for a future AI.

I wonder how many trolls are out there with the intent of poisoning AI training wells. When will they cause the first car crash by intentionally failing captchas?

Re: OpenAI Codex

#168

Post by bobthedino »

woah wrote: post #77
throwaway128327 wrote: post #19

I don't understand what is going on, why are people even spending time on this? I think this and copilot and etc are solving a non problem of "we will remove the boring part of programming" by generating a bunch of code, so now it's even more boring to read it and check if it actually does what you want. In the same time zero of the developers I interviewed know how a linked list is laid out in memory, or what is the…

You're interviewing programmers for a job in operating systems programming?

Well, to be fair none of the things mentioned are specific to operating systems programming. I think that not understanding the things mentioned is one of the reasons software runs so slowly these days even on computers than are orders of magnitude more powerful than just twenty years ago.

Re: OpenAI Codex

#169

Post by wrinkl3 »

GistNoesis wrote: post #163
wrinkl3 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's about as advisable as asking it to write firmware for a pacemaker. Smart contracts are some of the most delicate codebases - even a tiny bug can cause you to lose a lot of money. With a model like this bugs are very likely, especially in such a niche domain.

I agree that at first it seems to be a bad idea, but the more I think about it, the more I think it makes for a great test case to prove the AI is robust enough and that it can be trusted for real life scenarios. It also feels kind of inevitable. It seems like a safe playground, maybe it will lose a few tokens, but if they are no legal consequences, who cares ? The best place to move fast and break things, and with g…

How will you know that the generated code doesn't have any bugs?

Codex in its current form is meant to be used as an assist for someone who can already code/debug, not as a replacement for a contractor.

Re: OpenAI Codex

#170

Post by GistNoesis »

wrinkl3 wrote: post #169
GistNoesis wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that at first it seems to be a bad idea, but the more I think about it, the more I think it makes for a great test case to prove the AI is robust enough and that it can be trusted for real life scenarios. It also feels kind of inevitable. It seems like a safe playground, maybe it will lose a few tokens, but if they are no legal consequences, who cares ? The best place to move fast and break things, and with g…

How will you know that the generated code doesn't have any bugs? Codex in its current form is meant to be used as an assist for someone who can already code/debug, not as a replacement for a contractor.

Sure some contracts will have bugs at the beginning, but those faulty contract won't get reused.

In theory you can create a new token per contract to cap the maximum potential loss. Then you increase this maximum potential loss as the contract get used in the open and therefore become more robust.

You probably can write some guarantee fund smart contract to compensate for when bug happen.

Sooner or later we will have to implement a high-level error-correction mechanism to handle the bugs generated by the weak AI : Like a paradigm shift where you expect bugs to happen and handle them instead of expecting no bugs.

Post reply on HN