261–270 of 451 posts
This is called product-channel fit. It's great the writer recognized how to capture the demand from a new acquisition channel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is executives want to completely remove humans from the loop, which almost universally leads to disastrous results Thanks for your words of wisdom, which touch on a very important other point I want to raise: often, we (i.e., developers, researchers) construct a technology that would be helpful and "net benign" if deployed as a tool for humans to use, instead of deploying it in order to replace humans.…
You're trying to put out a forest fire with an eyedropper. Stock your underground bunkers with enough food and water for the rest of your life and work hard to persuade the AI that you're not a threat. If possible, upload your consciousness to a starwisp and accelerate it out of the Solar System as close to lightspeed as you can possibly get it. Those measures might work. (Or they might be impossible, or insufficient…
I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works. Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does…
That's closer to simply observing the mean. For an analogy, it's like waiting to pave a path until people tread the grass in a specific pattern. (Some courtyard designers used to do just that. Wait to see where people were walking first.)
Making things easy for Chat GPT means making things close to ordinary, average, or mainstream. Not creative, but can still be valuable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone not familiar with these libraries, image_get or image_read seems much clearer to me than imread. I'm wondering if the convention is worse than your instinct in this case. Maybe these AI tools will push us towards conventions that aren't always the best design.
image_get is clearer—unless you've used Matlab, Octave, matplotlib, SciPy, OpenCV, scikit-learn, or other things that have copied Matlab's interface. In that case, using the established name is clearer. (Unless, on the gripping hand, your image_get function is subtly different from Matlab's imread, for example by not returning an array, in which case a different name might be better.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make sense. It's like saying that the best general advice about which way to turn when you're driving is to turn right. From your comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44493308 , and from the fact that you used the passive voice in your comment ("they should be avoided") apparently without noticing, it appears that the reason you have this opinion is that you don't know what the passive voice i…
> the best general advice about which way to turn At the risk of derailing into insane pedantry land, this part is kinda true, so maybe not the best analogy? From routing efficiency: https://www.ge.com/news/reports/ups-drivers-dont-turn-left-p... And also safety: https://www.phly.com/rms/blog/turning-left-at-an-intersectio...
I think folks have taken the wrong lesson from this. It’s not that they added a new feature because there was demand. They added a new feature because technology hallucinated a feature that didn’t exist. The savior of tech, generative AI, was telling folks a feature existed that didn’t exist. That’s what the headline is, and in a sane world the folks that run ChatGPT would be falling over themselves to be sure it did…
ChatGPT routinely hallucinates API calls. ChatGPT flat-out makes it from whole cloth. "Apple Intelligence" creates variants of existing API calls, Usually, by adding nonexistent arguments.
Both of them will hallucinate API calls that are frequently added by programmers through extensions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. IMO this has always been the killer use case for AI—from Google Maps to Grammarly. I discovered Grammarly at the very last phase of writing my book. I accepted maybe 1/3 of its suggestions, which is pretty damn good considering my book had already been edited by me dozens of times AND professionally copy-edited. But if I'd have accepted all of Gram…
> The problem is executives want to completely remove humans from the loop, which almost universally leads to disastrous results Thanks for your words of wisdom, which touch on a very important other point I want to raise: often, we (i.e., developers, researchers) construct a technology that would be helpful and "net benign" if deployed as a tool for humans to use, instead of deploying it in order to replace humans.…
> But then along comes a greedy business manager who reckons recklessly
Thanks for this. :)
If that's too scary, the failed tool call could trigger another AI to go draft up a PR with that proposed tool, since hey, it's cheap and might be useful.