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

1-800-ChatGPT

help.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 350 posts

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#261

Post by johannes1234321 »

crazygringo wrote: post #256
frakt0x90 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it's just an example, but are we really this far gone? Just watch a random movie and if you don't like it, pick another. This is such an extreme micro-optimization of a small experience.

You don't often know if a movie is good until you've finished it, because it all depends on how the story came together in the end. You can spend 2 hours watching a moving, emotional story that teaches you something new about the human condition and the choices we make in our lives. Or you can spend 2 hours that turns out to be full of plot holes and inconsistent characters, where nothing makes sense in the end and y…

Better bring your tablet or similar device with your choice of content. Airplane screen quality is bad and movies are edited in weird ways (for being acceptable for all ages and cultures on loss of anything else)

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#262

Post by nojs »

bsimpson wrote: post #168

On coast to coast flights, there's often not a good way of knowing what movies are available until after you've left cell coverage. This makes simple research like checking the IMDb score challenging. Alaska Air has a whitelist of messaging services that you can use for free during the flight. WhatsApp is on that list. So if you want to research obscure plane movies on an Alaska flight, you can connect to their wifi…

Time for http-over-whatsapp

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#263

Post by swatcoder »

rtsil wrote: post #199
swatcoder wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but which of those things would you not have resolved just as well 10 years ago? All those possibilities were added by the maturing web itself, as a genuinely novel change from having to source books or experts/friends in the days before. I'm glad ChatGPT didn't lead you astray, but I'm not seeing what it's added here besides shuffling up the user interface in a way that you presently and subjectively prefer?

My plant would have been dead. As for the rest, sure, I would have resolved them eventually, after many frustrated hours of googling and trial and error. Time is my most precious thing, I already don't have enough time to do all the things that I want to do, I don't want to waste that trying to find and test solutions when ChatGPT gives me instant answers. I'd rather spend time playing with my cats or riding a bike i…

"many hours of frustrated googling and trial and error" isn't a familiar experience to me, but I'll trust that it is for you. I'm glad you see that as behind you now with this. I suppose you must not be alone.

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#264

Post by whimsicalism »

glenstein wrote: post #247
whimsicalism wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? why is the authorship of this book relevant

Because it shows that it's perfectly plausible for people ages 50 plus to appreciate the value out of these technologies every bit as much as us whippersnappers. Some of them are writing books about it, after all

those books are not really at all about the techniques used in llms

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#265

Post by slg »

glenstein wrote: post #243
slg wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not Alupis. I can't and am not trying to speak on their behalf. I'm therefore not moving the goalposts they established. I'm making my own related point. That point is that the information provided above about these movies is worthless. It does not add any new value beyond what would already be available in the streaming interface. Several of the descriptions are nothing but the genre and one person involved in t…

I'm aware that you're a different commenter but you are addressing yourself to a comment that was in reply to them and therefore not necessarily appropriate to measure such a comment against entirely new criteria that you want to bring into the conversation. Despite your protestations to the contrary, these descriptions seem perfectly fine in that they're accurate and meaningful. And it if you want to start getting f…

>these descriptions seem perfectly fine in that they're accurate and meaningful

The description of Wicked doesn't mention either The Wizard of Oz or the Broadway musical. So yes, the descriptions don't contain obscene mistakes like calling Wicked a courtroom drama. If that is enough for you to call these "accurate" while ignoring the vagueness or the 1 in 10 failure rate on the Anora description, fine by me. But you must have some weird definition of the word "meaningful" to apply that to descriptions like the one of Wicked. That simply isn't a helpful way to describe that movie.

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#266

Post by JadeNB »

th0ma5 wrote: post #258
JadeNB wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Great! Now show me a system that can verify that list for accuracy as well. Not to be flippant, but this is the complaint. You can't approach outputs uncritically. In general you can't, but surely it's not that big a deal if ChatGPT offers an inaccurate summary of a movie you're about to use to kill time on a flight? I suppose it becomes important if, e.g., you're relying on it to tell you whether a movie is approp…

If I invested money into a film, I would want its representation in the world to reflect what the movie is about at the very least.

> If I invested money into a film, I would want its representation in the world to reflect what the movie is about at the very least.

Sure, but that's the filmmaker's interest. As someone sitting on a plane trying to decide whether to watch a movie, I care about my interest, not that of the person who made it. I'm not particularly arguing for the use of ChatGPT here (I wouldn't use it), just that the risks it usually poses are fairly minimal in this case.

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#267

Post by dayjah »

therein wrote: post #116
dayjah wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a thin edge of the wedge issue, right? ChatGPT is pretty darn good for most things. I’ve used it extensively for the past 18 months and only in a few cases would I say it “completely lied to me”. My general rubric is: “would I trust someone on Reddit to correctly guide me on this”. If the answer is “yes” then ChatGPT is likely going to do well. If the volume on a particular subject is low / susceptible to fal…

I don't want to turn this into another Claude lies less than ChatGPT subthread but since you mentioned configuration of MikroTik routers I felt like I should. ChatGPT lies a lot about RouterOS, I don't know why. Claude helped me a lot on the other hand with all things MikroTik.

Thanks! I’ll give it a shot when I get to the vlan stuff I’ve on deck

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#268

Post by Alupis »

conductr wrote: post #241
650REDHAIR wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is unsurprising and totally wild. Not very confidence inspiring.

Because the tech is in a move fast break things phase, not business critical to anyone and mostly just a toy

> not business critical to anyone and mostly just a toy

Except it's business-critical to OpenAI, who hopes to look impressive when you call the number.

Instead, for some unknown percentage of folks that call will become confused, or think OpenAI is a bit janky. Based on the anecdotes here, it seems the percentage of people who will experience this issue is not trivial either.

My guess is OpenAI paid a truck load for this 1-800 number and rushed it into "production" for this product launch without waiting for all old routing to be updated.

That's a pretty amateur mistake, honestly.

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#269

Post by dartos »

glenstein wrote: post #246
dartos wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't seen Anora so I'll give you that one It was literally the first movie in that list. You tried making a counter example and the first part of it was already wrong. That’s the point. Not that it _cant_ give good answers, but whether it does or not is a crap shoot. Now to analyze how correct it was we need to verify each movie it gave… It’d be faster just to read the movie descriptions.

You're still trying to imply that the list as a whole is as inaccurate as that one particular example. And I think that's quite obviously not the case, most, probably every other example on the list is just fine.

I’m saying that because of the one incorrect example, I can’t just assume that the rest are accurate.

I now need to either trust a machine that I know gives incorrect information (as demonstrated by the first example) or I need to verify each example.

> probably every other example on the list is just fine.

Why don’t you check IMDb and let me know?

While you’re at it, don’t think about how much faster it would’ve been if you just looked up popular recent movies on IMDb or rotten tomatoes.

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#270

Post by jenniferCrawdad »

slg wrote: post #265
glenstein wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware that you're a different commenter but you are addressing yourself to a comment that was in reply to them and therefore not necessarily appropriate to measure such a comment against entirely new criteria that you want to bring into the conversation. Despite your protestations to the contrary, these descriptions seem perfectly fine in that they're accurate and meaningful. And it if you want to start getting f…

>these descriptions seem perfectly fine in that they're accurate and meaningful The description of Wicked doesn't mention either The Wizard of Oz or the Broadway musical. So yes, the descriptions don't contain obscene mistakes like calling Wicked a courtroom drama. If that is enough for you to call these "accurate" while ignoring the vagueness or the 1 in 10 failure rate on the Anora description, fine by me. But you…

The comment thread you're at the end of started with this:

> I would expect nothing but hallucinations and nonsense coming out of any LLM regarding recently-released movies (aka. the ones you often find on flights).

The comment that replied to it (the one that you're arguing against) provides evidence that proves it wrong. You are correcting someone who isn't incorrect, and I think the person you're responding to is very justified in saying you're moving the goalposts here.

Post reply on HN