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

Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

holovaty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 451 posts

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#211

Post by wrsh07 »

_1tem wrote: post #181

A significant number of new signups at my tiny niche SaaS now come from ChatGPT, yet I have no idea what prompts people are using to get it to recommend my product. I can’t get it to recommend my product when trying some obvious prompts on my own, on other people’s accounts (though it does work on my account because it sees my chat history of course).

Add a prompt for referrals that asks them if they're willing to link the discussion that helped them find you!

Some users might share it. ChatGPT has so many users it's somewhat mind boggling

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#212

Post by kragen »

adrianh wrote: post #122
shermantanktop wrote: post #94

The music notation tool space is balkanized in a variety of ways. One of the key splits is between standard music notation and tablature, which is used for guitar and a few other instruments. People are generally on one side or another, and the notation is not even fully compatible - tablature covers information that standard notation doesn't, and vice versa. This covers fingering, articulations, "step on fuzz pedal…

I don't fully understand your comment, but Soundslice has had first-class support for tablature for more than 10 years now. There's an excellent built-in tab editor, plus importers for various formats. It's just the ASCII tab support that's new.

I wonder if LLMs will stimulate ASCII formats for more things, and whether we should design software in general to be more textual in order to work better with LLMs.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#213

Post by KineticLensman »

normie3000 wrote: post #90
suzzer99 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. IMO this has always been the killer use case for AI—from Google Maps to Grammarly. I discovered Grammarly at the very last phase of writing my book. I accepted maybe 1/3 of its suggestions, which is pretty damn good considering my book had already been edited by me dozens of times AND professionally copy-edited. But if I'd have accepted all of Gram…

What's wrong with passive?

Passive can be disastrous when used in contractual situations if the agent who should be responsible for an action isn’t identified. E.g. “X will be done”. I was once burnt by a contract that in some places left it unclear whether the customer or the contractor was responsible for particular tasks. Active voice that identifies the agent is less ambiguous

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#214

Post by CrazyStat »

kragen wrote: post #207
brookst wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, just like tritones in music, there is a place for passive voice in writing. But also like tritones, the best general advice is that they should be avoided.

That doesn't make sense. It's like saying that the best general advice about which way to turn when you're driving is to turn right. From your comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44493308 , and from the fact that you used the passive voice in your comment ("they should be avoided") apparently without noticing, it appears that the reason you have this opinion is that you don't know what the passive voice i…

I can’t find it, but I remember reading an article a year or two ago with an analysis showing some of the most vocal critics of the passive voice used the passive voice more often than most of their contemporary writers.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#215

Post by kragen »

CrazyStat wrote: post #214
kragen wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make sense. It's like saying that the best general advice about which way to turn when you're driving is to turn right. From your comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44493308 , and from the fact that you used the passive voice in your comment ("they should be avoided") apparently without noticing, it appears that the reason you have this opinion is that you don't know what the passive voice i…

I can’t find it, but I remember reading an article a year or two ago with an analysis showing some of the most vocal critics of the passive voice used the passive voice more often than most of their contemporary writers.

Probably http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003366.h..., giving specific statistics on Orwell and on Strunk & White, linked from https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#216

Post by zkmon »

This reminds me how the software integraters or implementers worked a couple of decades back. They are IT contractors for implementing a popular software product such as IBM MQ or SAP etc at a client site and maintaining it. They sometimes incorrectly claim that some feature exists, and after finding that it doesn't exist, they create a ticket to the software vendor asking for it as a patch release.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#217

Post by kragen »

KineticLensman wrote: post #213
normie3000 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with passive?

Passive can be disastrous when used in contractual situations if the agent who should be responsible for an action isn’t identified. E.g. “X will be done”. I was once burnt by a contract that in some places left it unclear whether the customer or the contractor was responsible for particular tasks. Active voice that identifies the agent is less ambiguous

This is an excellent point, and one I haven't seen raised before.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#218

Post by a_e_k »

kragen wrote: post #30

I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works. Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does…

I've played with a similar idea for writing technical papers. I'll give an LLM my draft and ask it to explain back to me what a section means, or otherwise quiz it about things in the draft.

I've found that LLMs can be kind of dumb about understanding things, and are particularly bad at reading between the lines for anything subtle. In this aspect, I find they make good proxies for inattentive anonymous reviewers, and so will try to revise my text until even the LLM can grasp the key points that I'm trying to make.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#219

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

dataflow wrote: post #159
suzzer99 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. IMO this has always been the killer use case for AI—from Google Maps to Grammarly. I discovered Grammarly at the very last phase of writing my book. I accepted maybe 1/3 of its suggestions, which is pretty damn good considering my book had already been edited by me dozens of times AND professionally copy-edited. But if I'd have accepted all of Gram…

Hasn't Microsoft Word has style checkers for things like passive voice for decades?

yes, but now they work

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#220

Post by kragen »

a_e_k wrote: post #218
kragen wrote: post #30

I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works. Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does…

I've played with a similar idea for writing technical papers. I'll give an LLM my draft and ask it to explain back to me what a section means, or otherwise quiz it about things in the draft. I've found that LLMs can be kind of dumb about understanding things, and are particularly bad at reading between the lines for anything subtle. In this aspect, I find they make good proxies for inattentive anonymous reviewers, an…

That's fantastic! I agree that it's very similar.

In both cases, you might get extra bonus usability if the reviewers or the API users actually give your output to the same LLM you used to improve the draft. Or maybe a more harshly quantized version of the same model, so it makes more mistakes.

Post reply on HN