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

ChatGPT Pulse

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 766 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#241

Post by lxgr »

blks wrote: post #182
jama211 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not this again. That study had serious problems. But I’m not even going to argue about that. I want to raise something no one else seems to mention about AI in coding work. I do a lot of work now with AI that I used to code by hand, and if you told me I was 20% slower on average, I would say “that’s totally fine it’s still worth it” because the EFFORT level from my end feels so much less. It’s like, a robot vacuum mi…

Often someone’s personal productivity with AI means someone else have to dig through their piles of rubbish to review PR they committed. In your particular case it sounds like you’re rapidly loosing your developer skills, and enjoy that now you have to put less effort and think less.

Another way of viewing it would be that LLMs allow software developers to focus their development skills where it actually matters (correctness, architecture etc.), rather than wasting hours catering to the framework or library of the day’s configuration idiosyncrasies.

That stuff kills my motivation to solve actual problems like nothing else. Being able to send off an agent to e.g. fix some build script bug so that I can get to the actual problem is amazing even with only a 50% success rate.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#242

Post by lxgr »

fbxio wrote: post #231
blks wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often someone’s personal productivity with AI means someone else have to dig through their piles of rubbish to review PR they committed. In your particular case it sounds like you’re rapidly loosing your developer skills, and enjoy that now you have to put less effort and think less.

I’d love not to have to be great at programming, as much as I enjoy not being great at cleaning the canalization. But I get what you mean, we do lose some potentially valuable skills if we outsource them too often for too long.

It’s probably roughly as problematic as most people not being able to fix even simple problems with their cars themselves these days (i.e., not very).

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#243

Post by lxgr »

fbxio wrote: post #236
wussboy wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that relying heavily on Google Maps makes you less able to navigate without Google Maps. I don't think there's research on this yet, but I would be stunned if the same process isn't at play here.

Whatever your mind believes it doesn’t need to hold on to that what is expensive to maintain and run, it’ll let go of. This isn’t entirely accurate from a neuroscience perspective but it’s kinda ballpark. Pretty much like muscles decay when we stop using them.

Sure, but sticking with that analogy, bicycles haven’t caused the muscles of people that used to go for walks and runs to atrophy either – they now just go much longer distances in the same time, with less joint damage and more change in scenery :)

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#247

Post by spike021 »

psyclobe wrote: post #219

ChatGPT has given me wings to tackle projects I would've never had the impetus to tackle, finally I know how to use my oscilloscope and I am repairing vintage amps; fun times.

same for me but Claude. I've had an iphone game i've wanted to do for years but just couldn't spend the time consistently to learn everything to do it. but with Claude over the past three months i've been able to implement the game and even release it for fun.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#248

Post by troupo »

jama211 wrote: post #145
jsheard wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My personal productivity has skyrocketed in the last 12 months. Has your productivity objectively, measurably improved or does it just feel like it has improved? Recall the METR study which caught programmers self-reporting they were 20% faster with AI when they were actually 20% slower.

Not this again. That study had serious problems. But I’m not even going to argue about that. I want to raise something no one else seems to mention about AI in coding work. I do a lot of work now with AI that I used to code by hand, and if you told me I was 20% slower on average, I would say “that’s totally fine it’s still worth it” because the EFFORT level from my end feels so much less. It’s like, a robot vacuum mi…

> Not this again. That study had serious problems.

The problem is, there are very few if any other studies.

All the hype around LLMs we are supposed to just believe. Any criticism is "this study has serious problems".

> It’s like, a robot vacuum might take way longer

> Coding work that I used to procrastinate

Note how your answer to "the study had serious problems" is totally problem-free analogies and personal anecdotes.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#249

Post by gjgtcbkj »

9rx wrote: post #136
IanCal wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one agrees on what agi means. IMO we’re clearly there, gpt5 would easily be considered agi years ago. I don’t think most people really get how non-general things were that are now handled by the new systems. Now agi seems to be closer to what others call asi. I think k the goalposts will keep moving.

Definitions do vary, but everyone agrees that it requires autonomy. That is ultimately what sets AGI apart from AI. The GPT model alone does not offer autonomy. It only acts in response to explicit input. That's not to say that you couldn't built autonomy on top of GPT, though. In fact, that appears to be exactly what Pulse is trying to accomplish. But Microsoft and OpenAI's contractual agreements state that the auto…

ChatGPT is more antonymous than many humans. Especially poor ones and disabled ones.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#250

Post by input_sh »

ip26 wrote: post #233
carabiner wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I've tried some of the therapy prompts, "Ask me 7 questions to help me fix my life, then provide insights." And it just gives me a generic summary of the top 5 articles you'd get if you googled "how to fix depression, social anxiety" or something.

Argue with it. Criticize it. Nitpick the questions it asked. Tell it what you just said: you just gave me a generic summary of the top 5 articles you'd get if you googled "how to fix depression, social anxiety" or something When you open the prompt the first time it has zero context on you . I'm not an LLM-utopist, but just like with a human therapist you need to give it more context. Even arguing with it is context.

I do, frequently, and ChatGPT in particular gets stuck in a loop where it specifically ignores whatever I write and repeats the same thing over and over again.

To give a basic example, ask it to list some things and then ask it to provide more examples. It's gonna be immediately stuck in a loop and repeat the same thing over and over again. Maybe one of the 10 examples it gives you is different, but that's gonna be a false match for what I'm looking for.

This alone makes it as useful as clicking on the first few results myself. It doesn't refine its search, it doesn't "click further down the page", it just wastes my time. It's only as useful as the first result it gives, this idea of arguing your way to better answers has never happened to me in practice.

Post reply on HN