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

Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 342 posts

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#231

Post by wizeman »

unethical_ban wrote: post #206
wizeman wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's an interesting argument if I ever saw one! Your viewpoint is completely the opposite of mine, let me argue a couple of points: > An AI cannot, by definition, create better HN content. Because HN content is about hearing what people think about a certain topic/thread. Please tell me: for you, what is the difference between hearing what people think, and hearing what a human-level AI thinks? Are you saying…

The AI we see today is a synthesis of a huge number of arbitrary inputs. You may argue that humans are, as well, but humans are different machine than AI. If I am asking for a human response, or a human piece of artwork, I am doing so because I want to understand and experience the output of machines of the same model. I want to continue the human experience. AI-generated content can be fascinating, helpful, and in s…

> But if I ask for a human, I want a human.

> I don't care if AI is more interesting than a human. I want a human, because I am human. I am not transhumanist.

I think I understand your point but I'd like to give a counterpoint: replace "human" by "white human" and "AI" by "black human" and you might see how that line of reasoning is flawed.

In other words, there might come a time when AIs could become really offended if you'd exclude them like that from social interactions, with all the repercussions that might have.

> I wonder what the correlation is between people who see no particular value in interacting with humans, and people who struggle to interact with humans.

I see value in interacting with humans, especially at this point in time, and especially in ways that machines can't (e.g. having meaningful intimate relationships, raising a family, etc). Even then, machines could theoretically do some of this better than humans, as suggested by a lot of sci-fi content (except the actual reproducing part).

But I also see value in interacting with beings that are superior to humans, assuming they are able to do what humans can, only better.

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#232

Post by tartoran »

wizeman wrote: post #181
vineyardmike wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what do you propose we do when ChatGPT (or something like it) can create better content than most humans? An AI cannot, by definition, create better HN content. Because HN content is about hearing what people think about a certain topic/thread. Hearing what an AI statistically regurgitates doesn’t satisfy the purpose even if it’s better written. The internet is about people . I may not be friends with everyone on H…

Wow, that's an interesting argument if I ever saw one! Your viewpoint is completely the opposite of mine, let me argue a couple of points: > An AI cannot, by definition, create better HN content. Because HN content is about hearing what people think about a certain topic/thread. Please tell me: for you, what is the difference between hearing what people think, and hearing what a human-level AI thinks? Are you saying…

> Don't most humans just regurgitate the same arguments they've just read or learned elsewhere (or even here), like 99% of the time?

Yes but at least they choose what they regurgitate unless you think of most people as automatons. Personally Im more interested in human regurgitations than AI immitations of these. So far AI doesn’t bring any reasoning and cannot discern what it regurgitates but sure as hell comes off as confident (It could probably immitate being humble as well). Someone posted an example of gpt bulshiting something akin to 2+0=3 but very convincibly.

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#233

Post by umeshunni »

sydd wrote: post #122
closeparen wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect most automotive engineers don't let their children drive the cars they go to the office to create and propagate every day. Because... they're children.

I think the poster above meant that e.g. engineers are Meta are paying very good money so their children go to private schools where they confiscate phones. Or that they dont buy phones at all for their kids until they turn like 12, instead pay a lot of money so they go to private tutors, have nannies, do all kinds of after school programmes. Whereas kids from poor families cannot afford these or to keep watch of the…

> e.g. engineers are Meta are paying very good money so their children go to private schools where they confiscate phones

This sounds like one of those made-up tweets that became an article that became an urban legend.

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#234

Post by calebh »

brindidrip wrote: post #29

We need to start developing software to detect AI responses. To detect a response generated by ChatGPT, we could first analyze the content of the response to see if it contains any unnatural or repetitive language. We could also check the formatting of the response to see if it follows the typical conventions used by human responders on the platform. Additionally, we could check for any unusual patterns in the timest…

OpenAI needs to get on top of this and generate a detector for every model they release. And then sell access to both.

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#235

Post by cauefcr »

SoftTalker wrote: post #65
echelon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit and Twitter are going to be overwhelmed with bots indistinguishable from humans.

A lot of reddit and twitter posts are already just people regurgitating and rehashing what they have heard/read from others, mostly without a lot of critical thought. Is this really going to be very different?

It's a matter of scale, you could have personalized propaganda for each community.

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#236

Post by dragonwriter »

brindidrip wrote: post #29

We need to start developing software to detect AI responses. To detect a response generated by ChatGPT, we could first analyze the content of the response to see if it contains any unnatural or repetitive language. We could also check the formatting of the response to see if it follows the typical conventions used by human responders on the platform. Additionally, we could check for any unusual patterns in the timest…

> To detect a response generated by ChatGPT, we could first analyze the content of the response to see if it contains any unnatural or repetitive language. We could also check the formatting of the response to see if it follows the typical conventions used by human responders on the platform.

Given my experience with human responses to text queries, these would be positively correlated.

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#237

Post by ben_w »

vineyardmike wrote: post #165
wizeman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we are going to have to take an aggressive stance against mediocre generated content here on HN, lest this small island of community be lost like the rest of the Old Internet. How do you propose we do that? And what do you propose we do when ChatGPT (or something like it) can create better content than most humans? (... which I would argue it is already happening in some limited contexts, although I admit m…

> what do you propose we do when ChatGPT (or something like it) can create better content than most humans? An AI cannot, by definition, create better HN content. Because HN content is about hearing what people think about a certain topic/thread. Hearing what an AI statistically regurgitates doesn’t satisfy the purpose even if it’s better written. The internet is about people . I may not be friends with everyone on H…

Out of curiosity I tried prompting ChatGPT to come up with interesting rebuttals to your comment, but it kept misunderstanding my prompt and agreeing with you instead.

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#238

Post by cesarb »

vineyardmike wrote: post #165
wizeman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we are going to have to take an aggressive stance against mediocre generated content here on HN, lest this small island of community be lost like the rest of the Old Internet. How do you propose we do that? And what do you propose we do when ChatGPT (or something like it) can create better content than most humans? (... which I would argue it is already happening in some limited contexts, although I admit m…

> what do you propose we do when ChatGPT (or something like it) can create better content than most humans? An AI cannot, by definition, create better HN content. Because HN content is about hearing what people think about a certain topic/thread. Hearing what an AI statistically regurgitates doesn’t satisfy the purpose even if it’s better written. The internet is about people . I may not be friends with everyone on H…

> An AI cannot, by definition, create better HN content. Because HN content is about hearing what people think about a certain topic/thread.

Not necessarily. Good HN content can also be factual information relevant to the topic at hand. And yes, current AI like ChatGPT might not help with that, but an hypothetical future AI which cared more about the veracity of its statements could.

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#239

Post by tartoran »

unethical_ban wrote: post #206
wizeman wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's an interesting argument if I ever saw one! Your viewpoint is completely the opposite of mine, let me argue a couple of points: > An AI cannot, by definition, create better HN content. Because HN content is about hearing what people think about a certain topic/thread. Please tell me: for you, what is the difference between hearing what people think, and hearing what a human-level AI thinks? Are you saying…

The AI we see today is a synthesis of a huge number of arbitrary inputs. You may argue that humans are, as well, but humans are different machine than AI. If I am asking for a human response, or a human piece of artwork, I am doing so because I want to understand and experience the output of machines of the same model. I want to continue the human experience. AI-generated content can be fascinating, helpful, and in s…

Get ready to see a lot of human spaces invaded by somebody elses AI with goals that are not in your interest. It’s been happening already with chatbots pulled by strings by nefarious people but that operation will only amplify to a point that it will become cumbersome and hard to know whether you’re chatting or reading something that came from a human or language model.

To me internet comments are almost on life support. Im curious if HN will have the same fate

Re: Stack Overflow questions are being flooded with answers from ChatGPT

#240

Post by wizeman »

tartoran wrote: post #232
wizeman wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's an interesting argument if I ever saw one! Your viewpoint is completely the opposite of mine, let me argue a couple of points: > An AI cannot, by definition, create better HN content. Because HN content is about hearing what people think about a certain topic/thread. Please tell me: for you, what is the difference between hearing what people think, and hearing what a human-level AI thinks? Are you saying…

> Don't most humans just regurgitate the same arguments they've just read or learned elsewhere (or even here), like 99% of the time? Yes but at least they choose what they regurgitate unless you think of most people as automatons. Personally Im more interested in human regurgitations than AI immitations of these. So far AI doesn’t bring any reasoning and cannot discern what it regurgitates but sure as hell comes off…

> Yes but at least they choose what they regurgitate unless you think of most people as automatons.

And what, are you saying ChatGPT doesn't choose what it regurgitates?

It seems like these arguments are getting more and more flimsy.

I do believe people (including me) are automatons because I think free will is logically impossible in the way most people intuitively think free will is.

Edit: to clarify, I believe people usually think of free will meaning that there's some magical soul-like way that allows you to choose what you do in a principled way that is not simply a direct functional result of your composition and the interactions that you have with the environment or some additional pure randomness that the environment imposes on you (due to the universe being quantum). Which is exactly like an intelligent machine would have to work, because... well, because it has to live in the same universe that we do, so in theory a machine can theoretically do what our minds do, functionally speaking. There's no magical free-will-like behavior that humans can have that machines can't, unless you believe in souls or other magical things.

> So far AI doesn’t bring any reasoning

This is clearly untrue, as ChatGPT can definitely reason pretty well (although, not always correctly, just like humans). As far as I can see, it can reason deductively, inductively, by analogy, it does abductive reasoning, cause-and-effect reasoning, critical thinking, step-by-step reasoning, you name it.

It might not always do it correctly, and it might even not do it as well as a good human can currently, but it can do it.

> Someone posted an example of gpt bulshiting something akin to 2+0=3 but very convincibly.

Humans do this all the time (although usually not at such an extreme level). Just look at all the posts saying ChatGPT can't do X or Y ;)

Post reply on HN