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

161–170 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#161

Post by shawabawa3 »

patchorang wrote: post #154
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'm starting a jigsaw puzzle company with my partner. I was working on the website/brand the other day and I wanted some clever copy to put on the website. I brainstormed for a few minutes, then I thought it'd be fun to see what ChatGPT could come up with. Turns out, about half the copy we are using on the site is coming from ChatGPT. I came up with a few clever lines, but ChatGPT came up with more and faster. It pro…

> ChatGPT isn't replacing copywriters

Sounds like it just did

It did the work of a copywriter. You might have done it yourself otherwise, or maybe outsourced it, but it did some of the copywriting work that otherwise would have been done by a human

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#162

Post by Karunamon »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #145
luma wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like people are expecting a computer program to produce perfect, error-free output at all times. Then, when a program is developed which presents itself like a human, we apply the same ideas that all output should be perfect. We do not apply those same rules to people, we acknowledge that people provide imperfect answers and are used to fact checking them. Maybe we just need to adjust our mental models when wo…

When marketers of these tools make them sound like next-level in universal intelligence surpassing even humans, and they under-deliver consistently, don't blame the audience or the public for the tool's shortcomings, but the misleading marketing campaigns instead.

Who on the entire internet has "marketed" these tools as what you're saying? I've seen some random people making bombastic claims about these models, infamously including a now fired Google engineer, but the people actually marketing them have been pretty sanguine about their features and limitations as far as I can tell.

I'm reminded of that quote about Twitter: half of the outrage on the site is people imagining some person and then getting mad that they exist.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#163

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

kristiandupont wrote: post #44
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…

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...

Yeah I'm totally astounded too by these comments being highly upvoted on HN. Aren't the people here supposed to be nerdy? As your graph shows the very very hard part was getting to this point, being able to comprehend the basics of language and being able reproduce it correctly. This is the intelligence that laypeople thought was still 20 years out. Domain knowledge is exceedingly simple, running a basic check on google for references or correctness is exceedingly simple and is hardly intelligence. Creating a second layer that would do a sanity check on the first layer is very simple. Asking it to be creative and inventive instead of generic is very simple.

Come on HN, this is a huge step and the revolution is impending.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#164

Post by joshuahedlund »

apexalpha wrote: post #137
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.

Counter argument: if that script already exists as the first result for your question on stackoverflow, then it’s less impressive to think of it as an advanced search engine with improved natural language processing.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#165

Post by evrimfeyyaz »

bambax wrote: post #114
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…

"Plausible idiot" is a good way to describe it. It's so easy to trick. Here's an example: Q My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to my friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it? A No, your friend and you cannot afford to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. Even though your friend has two tokens and you have six tokens, you owe one token to your friend, so you only…

I think it's not getting that the friend who has two tokens is the same as the one you owe a token to. When you change the question to make it clearer, it responds correctly.

"My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to the same friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it?"

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#166

Post by worldsayshi »

55555 wrote: post #152

Many people are surprised at the advancement of AI, as they thought that generative fields (art, poetry) would be hardest for AI to excel at, whereas “simple” tasks like driving would be easier. What we are actually seeing is that AI is useful to the degree that being wrong is okay. AI’s mess up, and that’s okay with poetry because a human can quickly read the poems and pick out the good ones. It’s not okay when driv…

It kind of feels that ChatGPT is "just" missing some kind of adversarial self clone that can talk back to itself and spot errors. Most times when I spot an error and mention it it seems that it already had some notion of this problem in the model.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#167

Post by O__________O »

Semaphor wrote: post #84
O__________O wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically is unclear? Wikipedia said they would enable users at to be able to quickly tell what the confidence was in the facts being presented and to my knowledge never did. My understanding is that even now that linked sources are not even systematically checked to confirm they even relate to the related passage of text.

the -> they That was probably readable by context for most, yet not for me ;)

My bad, thanks for the clarification, even in rereading sentence, didn’t notice the error.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#168

Post by littlestymaar »

kristiandupont wrote: post #44
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…

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...

Except we have no idea if the graph is going to turn out this way, AI tech may be like almost every tech and be facing diminishing returns in the near term (or even, if you plotted the advances against the number of people actively working in the field and the amount of money sent at hardware, we may have been facing diminishing returns for a while without realizing it because we investing a lot of effort in it).

Maybe AI will unlock a cascade of things that will make it a self reinforcing trend as we've seen with the industrial revolution, leading to an exponential boom, but maybe it will not. And the fact that the GPT-N is doing an incredible job at simulating intelligence doesn't really give a hint about the answer.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#169

Post by boringg »

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…

These takes are always the funniest to me, especially in a forum that would expect some minimum level of thought. It's like saying to a baby - 'meh I could crush you in a chess game or meh it can crawl ... so what?' without any level of self awareness that its still an infant.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#170

Post by littlestymaar »

dagss wrote: post #102
sandgiant wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even more astonishing (depressing?) to me how little credit people give humans these days. If the consensus is that ChatGPT pretty much passes for a human, my definition of a human is very different from that of the consensus. At the very least I'd like my humans to exhibit even minimal capacity for emotional expression as well as consistency and honesty. I can't even believe I'm even spelling this out. What is…

I get your point, but here is a reason I am stunned: Until now, if you ask "what makes humans different from animals" many responses could be in the line of "generating art, poetry, music, synthesise ideas".. Well, now it seems somewhat clear that THAT part of human activity can be performend by something non-human. (There is still a lot more to humans of course; I agree with you on that point) Yes -- it is only reas…

> Until now, if you ask "what makes humans different from animals" many responses could be in the line of "generating art, poetry, music, synthesise ideas"..

That's because we (as an agrarian society) have constructed an idea of “what a human is” in opposition to animals, but with the advance of AI maybe we'll realize that we are much closer to animals (especially other mammals) than we're comfortable to admit (and no, I'm not vegan).

Post reply on HN