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

ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 317 posts

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#21

Post by bbor »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #18
bbor wrote: post #14

Ugh I’m beginning to think I’m going to spend the next 6-12 months commenting “no, large language models aren’t supposed to somehow know everything in the world. No, that’s not what they’re designed for. Yes, hooking one up to our long-standing record-of-everything-in-the-world (google’s knowledge graph) is going to be powerful.” It’s getting to point where I need to consider stop going on HN. This is like when my fa…

You don't need to correct every wrong thing you read. In fact you will probably feel much better if you don't ever do it at all, or at least take a break for while.

Very true :). It doesn’t help that this isn’t exactly a little blog post, it’s a popular New Yorker feature…

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#22

Post by visarga »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #18
bbor wrote: post #14

Ugh I’m beginning to think I’m going to spend the next 6-12 months commenting “no, large language models aren’t supposed to somehow know everything in the world. No, that’s not what they’re designed for. Yes, hooking one up to our long-standing record-of-everything-in-the-world (google’s knowledge graph) is going to be powerful.” It’s getting to point where I need to consider stop going on HN. This is like when my fa…

You don't need to correct every wrong thing you read. In fact you will probably feel much better if you don't ever do it at all, or at least take a break for while.

obligatory https://xkcd.com/386/

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#23

Post by thundergolfer »

zetazzed wrote: post #17

Damn, I hate to plug products on HN, but I'd say that the New Yorker is the one subscription I've loved maintaining throughout my life. First got it right out of college and appreciate it 20 years later. Everyone is publishing think pieces about ChatGPT - yawn. But only the New Yorker said, hmm, how about if we get frickin' Ted Chiang to write a think piece? (It is predictably very well written.)

Certainly beats a Medium subscription, where you pay (more?) to read 95% garbage when compared with what's put in The New Yorker.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#25

Post by brookst »

bbor wrote: post #14

Ugh I’m beginning to think I’m going to spend the next 6-12 months commenting “no, large language models aren’t supposed to somehow know everything in the world. No, that’s not what they’re designed for. Yes, hooking one up to our long-standing record-of-everything-in-the-world (google’s knowledge graph) is going to be powerful.” It’s getting to point where I need to consider stop going on HN. This is like when my fa…

Same. I try to give myself three responses to any particular fallacy, mostly to work through my thinking. Once I have a pretty solid “you are assuming a technical limitation in a first gen product will persist in all future evolutions, when the second gen has already addressed it” response, I try to just smile at the 4th. . . Nth people who discover the exact same topic.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#26

Post by a_brawling_boo »

chrisshroba wrote: post #9
atgctg wrote: post #4

Delightful intro, turns out it's written by the master storyteller, Ted Chiang.

In case folks don't know who he is, Ted Chiang wrote the short story collection "Stories of your Life and Others", and one of the stories was "Story of your Life", on which the movie Arrival was based.

It is an amazing book, not just for science fiction fans. The first story, "Tower of Babylon" somehow is like a science fiction story but based on ancient people's cosmology. Great book.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#27

Post by sebzim4500 »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #18
bbor wrote: post #14

Ugh I’m beginning to think I’m going to spend the next 6-12 months commenting “no, large language models aren’t supposed to somehow know everything in the world. No, that’s not what they’re designed for. Yes, hooking one up to our long-standing record-of-everything-in-the-world (google’s knowledge graph) is going to be powerful.” It’s getting to point where I need to consider stop going on HN. This is like when my fa…

You don't need to correct every wrong thing you read. In fact you will probably feel much better if you don't ever do it at all, or at least take a break for while.

Very true, but it is hard not be frustrated reading the constant stream of confidently incorrect information about this topic. I left /r/programming similar reasons and it is sad to experience the same on HN.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#28

Post by brookst »

dhruvdh wrote: post #19

1. I don't understand how LLMs work. 2. I don't understand how ChatGPT works, but I have used it a few times. 3. I will use ChatGPT as the absolute measure of what LLMs are capable of. --- 1. I don't understand intelligence. 2. Humans are intelligent, humans can learn to do math. 3. LLMs are not good at math. 4. LLMs are not intelligent, they're just text compression. --- 1. I don't understand how LLMs work. 2. I hav…

Well said. Ted Chiang is remarkably smart and imaginative. I’m kind of wondering if the article is satire, or will be revealed to be written by an AI, or something. It’s definitely a forest/trees mistake.

Re: ChatGPT is a blurry JPEG of the web

#30

Post by mritchie712 »

dhruvdh wrote: post #19

1. I don't understand how LLMs work. 2. I don't understand how ChatGPT works, but I have used it a few times. 3. I will use ChatGPT as the absolute measure of what LLMs are capable of. --- 1. I don't understand intelligence. 2. Humans are intelligent, humans can learn to do math. 3. LLMs are not good at math. 4. LLMs are not intelligent, they're just text compression. --- 1. I don't understand how LLMs work. 2. I hav…

I can't take anyone seriously that has dozens of cons and only a couple pros on a product like this.
Post reply on HN