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

Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts

patterns.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 311 posts

Re: Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts

#261

Post by Hedepig »

Hellmitioksldf wrote: post #260
mdcox wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no one wants to automate themselves out of a job, only other people.

Thats actually my strategy; This makes it so that 1. my quality overall becomes better and my bosses always liked that (doing things per hand are more error prone, not on time etc.) 2. I can go on holiday knowing my company doesn't need me desperate 3. I can spend the free time of actually innovating and bringing more value to the company/product The problem is not automating yourself out of a job but not being able…

Despite productivity generally improving over the last few decades, wage compensation has not.

I'm concerned this will continue as a trend with any productivity improvements from these models.

Re: Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts

#262

Post by geraneum »

nerpderp82 wrote: post #83
mjburgess wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, in many cases, the so-called "first draft" (of code, content, etc.) is more just helpful for a mental warm-up. It isn't actually suitable. The time it takes to write/code/etc. isnt in the typing, that's trivial. It's in modelling the problem (, audience) and solving it. ChatGPT isnt in the game of modelling problems and solving them, it possesses only superficial semantic characteristics of the ques…

> ChatGPT isnt in the game of modelling problems and solving them, it possesses only superficial semantic characteristics of the questions posed You can give it the datamodel and a semantic description and it will do a pretty good job of reprojecting your data. People talk about chatgpt as being a fixed thing, it isn't. ChatGPT is the Apple II of LLMs. 3-4 moore units from now every issue that people think is a "gotc…

Some of the problems with ChatGPT are not mere “gotcha”s but rather problems inherent to how LLMs work and their philosophy. The biggest issue I’ve seen some other scientists [1] who don’t have a stake in OpenAI bring up is that: “LLMs make sh*t up”.

Maybe LLMs are not the final answer. For now, it looks like they are not.

[1] Yann LeCun: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1617254676428111872?s=46&t...

Re: Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts

#263

Post by robertlagrant »

eega wrote: post #256

> Playing around with GPT at this level you get the feeling that “recursive GPT” is very close to AGI. You could even ask GPT to reinforcement learn itself, adding new prompts based on fixes to previous questions. Of course, who knows what will happen to all this when GPT-4 drops. Leaning out of the window way too much here. This has nothing to do with AGI, which would require an intrinsic understanding of not only S…

Right - it might be like self-driving cars: incredible progress, but the remaining task to get them to actually drive safely might be impossible.

Re: Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts

#266

Post by spacebanana7 »

nmfisher wrote: post #232
Julesman wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't found GPT this reliable for coding. I've been maxing my hourly usage of ChatGPT since it launched and then switching to CoPilot and I have lots of good things to say about it. But reliability is not one of them. It has a tendency to ignore instructions, as mentioned, but also to get hung up on certain approaches or to use a different approach each time its asked. I'd guess it's very reliable for text genera…

I gave up on ChatGPT for code generation because I ended up spending more time tweaking prompts/fixing outputs than if I had just written it myself in the first place. I think this is probably the future of "coding" but it's not quite there yet. Is CoPilot any better?

The UX of CoPilot is a lot better. It feels like a smarter version of autocomplete.

They're based on the same GPT3 model so the quality of suggested code is similar but the ability to accept/reject suggestions based on tabbing in CoPilot makes it much less hassle to use.

Re: Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts

#267

Post by anentropic »

kqr wrote: post #236
freejazz wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, generally and unless there is a glaringly wrong result, only an analyst is going to know if the bot is right or not... what exactly does that gain you?

Maybe it's not a position where it is critical that all answers are 100 % accurate. Maybe getting it right every once in a while is enough to pay for the GPT compute time, but not really for analyst time.

Seems like the issue would be you'd generally get results that 'look' right but would never know if they were actually right without going through and... analysing them

Re: Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts

#268

Post by dzamo_norton »

duckmysick wrote: post #148
ethbr0 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The longer I'm in the business, the more I feel like my value as a software developer is identifying and asking clarifying questions.

We've been prompt engineers all along.

Touché.

Re: Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts

#269

Post by dzamo_norton »

fifilura wrote: post #253
minsc_and_boo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, IME the good business savvy SQL analysts get sucked into non-SQL assigned roles and nailing it because they write their own scripts.

Why so. Why do you mean scripts are better than SQL?

A file of SQL code is commonly referred to as a script.

Re: Replacing a SQL analyst with 26 recursive GPT prompts

#270

Post by spaceman_2020 »

jawns wrote: post #20

The problem is that you never really know whether the chat bot gets it right or terrifically wrong unless you already know how to do the task yourself. And in some cases, paying an analyst $50/hr. for a higher degree of confidence than you can get from a $1 chat bot is still very much worth it. The stakes are higher, too. If the chat bot gets it wrong, what are you going to do, fire it? There goes a small trickle of…

That's exactly what it is - a productivity booster. The point remains the same: it's going to theoretically put some SQL analysts out of work. If the $50/hr analyst is 10x faster at his job, you can replace 10 analysts with just 1.
Post reply on HN