Live data from Hacker News

Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

atomic14.com

241–250 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has value only if you know what it is talking about, thus it can only assist. If you ask it about AWS - you need to already know AWS, same with business etc. And if you can't make your own elevator pitch - the odds that you will be able to run a successful company are little to none. Website builders and ready-to-use templates have been around for decades and they only increased the demand for devs. Even if GPT wi…

To add to this - GPT is good at synthesizing existing information, but it's bad at combining it in truly novel ways. OP's startup idea is in a well-understood domain. There are lots of existing competitors offering basically that exact service. There are clear, obvious paths to building it. GPT can draw from blog posts and tutorials. On the other hand, it does poorly with significantly novel ideas. I tried it with on…

> To add to this - GPT is good at synthesizing existing information, but it's bad at combining it in truly novel ways.

Is that true, though? These AIs seem pretty capable to extract abstractions, like an author's style, and apply it to novel concepts.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ChatGPT is like having a bunch of 8 year olds who know how to use Google hanging around. It astonishes me that people can dismiss ChatGPT like this. By your own account, there now exists an AI that can convincingly imitate a literate, technically fluent human child. That's an incredible advance that's far beyond anything that existed even a couple of years ago. How is it not amazing? I get the sense that if some of…

In many cases, it does a lot better than 8 year olds with Google.

I agree. I pasted a block of code from a personal project into the prompt, and asked it to add a simple-but-not-trivial frontend feature, in human language (e.g. "This button expands the sidebar and shows some clickable options. It should open a modal instead, and include a search bar which filters the available options").

It gave me working code which did something kind of like what I asked. After some back and forth where I asked for changes, it -almost- got it working. I had to make one manual CSS change.

I don't think 8 year olds can do this - it feels more like an "instant junior developer" to me.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s relatively easy to convince ChatGPT to feel and express emotion.

It's relatively easy to write a prompt that ChatGPT can respond to with something it thinks you want to hear, based on what it's read others write in similar contexts — that's mostly what all these "wow ChatGPT gave me exactly what I wanted it to" posts are learning, mostly indirectly. GPT's moved from regurgitating appropriate texts to prompts, to synthesizing appropriate texts to prompts, but in both cases it's tel…

Is there any output ChatGPT could produce that would convince you it feels emotion?

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or automate the process even further; let the AI run the code, feed back the output (including errors), and ask "Does this output look correct? If not, please refine the code to fix any problems." Repeat until the AI says "LGTM".

Or let us provide unit tests for generated code and automatically tell the AI to fix the code until the code passes the tests we provided.

Or tell the AI to write the unit tests itself, and let it run those to check its work. After all, that's how humans write code. We aren't so great at writing bug-free code on our first try without testing it either.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#245
post #209
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No in Tesla's case it is because a person still has to be on the wheel to correct any potential errors.

You think if it was failing any significant amount to drive in a safe way, with this wide deployment, there wouldn't be a lot of crashes? Having an AI drive is the best way to make the driver zone out. At this point, it usually fails by going into intersections a little too slowly.

I enjoy videos on the self driving space and Tesla's technical (not business) approach to it. Its produced results that were actually quite a bit better than I expected at this stage.

I still regularly see videos of Tesla's beta software attempting to pull out into traffic in situations that clearly could have very bad outcomes. I still see so much phantom braking that its a collision risk.

I wouldn't call it dangerous, in the sense that it is done well enough that the person at the wheel should be able to handle it, but it'd crash a lot without an attentive driver.

Its a long way from 99% reliability at this point.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#246
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand your point — I’ve been rehearsing that response to the normal and all-consuming test question “Are you human?” since Wednesday.

Are you human?

"Yes, of course i am. What are you, a f--ing idiot?"

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#247
post #15
post #7

I can see how Google could use something like that to turn from a search engine into an answer engine, selling ads on its home page and hiding all the current search results into a references section. If they won't do it, someone else will and kill Google outright.

It does seem to be the future, but, at the moment, it's very unreliable. The worst thing is that it's all said with confidence and it would be very hard to know when things are wrong unless you already know. For example: Q. How many people spoke French in pre-revolutionary France? A. It is difficult to determine the exact number of people who spoke French in pre-revolutionary France. The population of France at the t…

What's worse is if you ask it to cite sources, it invents fake ones and presents them with full confidence, which I think was also the biggest and loudest concern with Meta's Galactica:[1]

> Q: How many people spoke French in pre-revolutionary France? Please cite sources.

> A: According to a study by the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, approximately 28.5% of the population of pre-revolutionary France spoke French as their primary language. This number increased to 94.5% in the late 19th century. Sources:

> 1. "French Language in France," French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/fichier/1893254/Langue_...

> 2. "The History of the French Language," ThoughtCo., https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-french-language-122...

Link 1 doesn't exist, and link 2 redirects to https://www.thoughtco.com/origin-of-life-theories-1224553 because it just smashed a relevant-looking slug against a real article's numeric ID.

--

I tried again in a new session and got a different wrong answer. So I called it out on the wrong answer, and it apologized, and regurgitated the same wrong answer again in response:

> Q: How many people spoke French in pre-revolutionary France? Please cite sources.

> A: Statistical data from 1783 shows that approximately 36 million people in France spoke French as their first language. Sources: UNESCO Institute of Statistics and The Historical Dictionary of Pre-Revolutionary France by Paul R. Hanson.

> Q: That answer is incorrect. How many people spoke French in pre-revolutionary France? Please cite sources.

> A: My apologies for the incorrect answer. According to a language survey conducted in 1783, approximately 36 million people in France spoke French as their first language. Sources: UNESCO Institute of Statistics and The Historical Dictionary of Pre-Revolutionary France by Paul R. Hanson.

Paul R. Hansen wrote _ Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution_; on its first page it cites the population of France during the revolution as "roughly 25 million".[2]

--

If you ask it to cite sources on a more niche topic that's nonetheless well documented on Wikipedia, it seems to regurgitate a stew of every related Wikipedia article on the topic, throws in some press releases about things that didn't happen, and invents fake sources:

> Q. Can you write a history of the 2020 Portland Thorns FC season, citing specific sources with URLs?

> A. The 2020 Portland Thorns FC season was a remarkable one, as the team achieved success on and off the pitch. The Thorns finished the regular season in first place in the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) standings, with an 11-4-3 record, and advanced to the semifinals of the NWSL Challenge Cup.

> Off the pitch, Portland Thorns FC continued to support their local community through various initiatives. The team hosted a virtual food drive to benefit Oregon Food Bank and partnered with local organizations to provide free meals for families in need. Additionally, they launched their “Thorns Together” campaign, which aimed to support small businesses around Portland during the pandemic.

> On October 14th, 2020, Portland Thorns FC made history by becoming the first NWSL team to host a match at Providence Park since March of 2020. The match was played against OL Reign and ended in a 1-1 draw.

> On December 12th, 2020, Portland Thorns FC won their fourth NWSL Championship title after defeating Chicago Red Stars 2-0 in the finals of the NWSL Challenge Cup. This marked their second consecutive championship title and fourth overall since 2013.

> Sources:

> Oregon Food Bank: https://oregonfoodbank.org/about-us/news/portland-thorns-fc-...

> NWSL: https://www.nwslsoccer.com/standings

> Thorns Together Campaign: https://www.timbers.com/post/2020/09/15/portland-thorns-fc-l...

> Providence Park Match: https://www.timbers.com/post/2020/10/14/portland-thorns-fc-h...

> NWSL Championship: https://www.nwslsoccer.com/news/article/portland-thorns-fc-a...

Everything above is a fully synthesized falsehood plausible to anyone who doesn't know what actually happened, while the season is documented with sources on Wikipedia,[3] something one would presume the model is aware of.

There was no 2020 regular season, it was cancelled due to COVID-19. There were two short competitions, but the Thorns didn't play in Providence Park in March, and their first home match was in September. The Thorns have won the Challenge Cup, but in 2021 against Gotham, not in 2020, and the nwslsoccer.com link 404s. The Thorns and Timbers have a "Stand Together" campaign that's worked with the Oregon Food Bank, but they didn't host a virtual food drive in 2020, and the Oregon Food Bank link 404s. There's never been a "Thorns Together" campaign, and the timbers.com link 404s. There was no NWSL championship to win in 2020, and if they had it would've been their third, not their fourth.

--

1: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/11/after...

2: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Historical_Dictionary_o...

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Portland_Thorns_FC_season

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To me it sounds like ChatGPT worked like Bootstrap: you need to make your website project decent looking but you don't know your way through css (although you know the fundamentals), Bootstrap to the rescue.

Needless to say: Bootstrap didn't make designer nor frontend engineers jobless.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#249
post #116
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

And a follow up: Q Do you consider the following statement to be logical: "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens."? A Yes, I consider the statement "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens…

This is the exact premise of one of the stories in the Cyberiad. The main character Trurl builds a machine and it is convinced that two and two is five, so much so that when Trurl refutes it, it starts getting angry and hunting its creator.

There is also another story, "The Electronic Bard" another computer made by Trurl, capable to write such good poetry that poets start to give up on life. ChatGPT is surprisingly good at writing romantic poems in the language of pure mathematics! Though still needs some work on rhyming.

Of all the Sci-fi AIs, we ended up with the ones from the Cyberiad. Amazing.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#250
post #33

The only people whose minds this is "blowing" are people who have never had to build or maintain question answering systems. ChatGPT is like having a bunch of 8 year olds who know how to use Google hanging around. Sure you can use them, and their skills might surprise u every now and then, but that has nothing to do with how much time you are going to waste on the answers they will get wrong.

> ChatGPT is like having a bunch of 8 year olds who know how to use Google hanging around. It astonishes me that people can dismiss ChatGPT like this. By your own account, there now exists an AI that can convincingly imitate a literate, technically fluent human child. That's an incredible advance that's far beyond anything that existed even a couple of years ago. How is it not amazing? I get the sense that if some of…

It's possible to recognize the advancement within the field while simultaneously recognizing the deficiencies from a general standpoint, especially with domain knowledge of the former. ChatGPT is both fascinating in that it _can_ act like a bunch of ignorant liars using Google and Stack Overflow, and mockable because it _does_ act like a bunch of ignorant liars using Google and Stack Overflow.
Post reply on HN