Live data from Hacker News

Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

salon.com

161–164 of 164 posts

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#161
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget the infamous remark from the Slashdot mod about the first iPod, “No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.” https://slashdot.org/story/21026

they weren't wrong...

He wasn't wrong that it has "no wireless" and less space than a Nomad (whatever that is). He was absolutely wrong that it was therefore "lame" i.e. unable to deliver significant value in spite of these limitations.

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we should blindly trust anything you read on the internet written by a real person? It's still valuable as a "search engine" with a different interface, especially if you can describe the problem but don't know the words to search for. For me that's a common issue when jumping into a new space.

no, you should not blindly trust anything you read on the internet, why did you think that? If anything, ChatGPT is actually doubling down on this "i'm the single authority" mode. google, while far from perfection, gives me a selection of links that i can scan and see for myself which one of them makes more sense. even looking for something stupid and potentially spammy like "chili soup recipe", i learned there are d…

So what would happen if you tried the recipe and then asked ChatGPT to change it based on your feedback. They're different tools and different interfaces.

If you already know what you want "Chili soup" then doing a classic search and looking up all the options is probably the best bet. If you don't know what you want (i have all these ingredients make me a recipe or I kind of liked this but want it to be ) then the aggregation that LLM's do is more suited.

Or you combine the two. Ask ChatGPT a question to figure out what you want, what are some areas to dive into more. The do the classic search research and primary sources to fill in the details. This is what I mean by blindly trusting the output, the best description I've heard is that it's a digital intern.

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a strong argument for its actual merits but this particular line of argument isn't convincing. > The first steam engines were also written off as being less powerful than a horse. > The first electric motors were written off as being less powerful than steam engines And the first Segways were written off, the first NFTs were written off, etc. (in fact, we've seen this same argument for blockchains changing ev…

The first segways were written off... and now you have electric scooters on demand on every city of the planet. The first NFTs were written off... by you and other writter-offers. If you didn't write them off back then and minted some you'd have made a pretty penny by now. I don't know, I'm not sure those examples strengthen your case.

Have you ever thought about where that money came from? Someone had to lose money for someone to get money. You do know that, right?

Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not understanding why this is an issue for LLMs but not humans. This is a simple commercial decision to make governed by three factors. 1. What is the cost of making an error? 2. What is the cost of the human doing the work? 3. What is the likelihood of the human making an error? It's just evaluating how much more likely AI is to make an error than a human, by the cost of that error, set against the savings by using…

> Not understanding why this is an issue for LLMs but not humans. Because humans have the capability to understand where their information comes from, and thus give enough meta-information to evaluate an accuracy rating, even if not all of them are good at it all the time. I understand that there has been some effort to build this capability into LLMs, and that it works a little bit for some of them, but it is not so…

I have met many a human that, despite having that capability, will just choose not to use it to the point of getting violently emotional to protect their ignorance and viewpoints.

Whereas, even though their capabilities are lacking, as someone who is disabled, I've found working with LLM to be much more effective. I've had the medical community gaslight me and actively use processes that make things worse. I've had the educational community restrict me from accessing education. I've had the legal community weaves webs of "yes the policy states that we must comply but that's actually a suggestion." Even when it comes to interacting with people socially, my experience has been one of violence and trauma.

So, in the face of everything it can't do, I'd much rather place my bets there than with humans. I myself am human. What human do you know would spend effort asserting that? One who is constantly dehumanized by society. And I think there is a lot of opportunity for disabled people to use this tech to be accepted as humans? Or to at least gaslight society back into thinking we are?

People won't be able to maintain "The Status Quo" and, frankly, I can't wait.

Post reply on HN