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

Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 348 posts

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#271

Post by lukeschlather »

ProtoAES256 wrote: post #194
tedivm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in ML for awhile (on the MLOps side of things) and have been in the industry for a bit, and one thing that I think is extremely common is for ML researchers to grossly underestimate the amount of work needed to make improvements. We've been a year away from full self driving cars for the last six years, and it seems like people are getting more cautious in their timing around that instead of getting more…

Ah, the good ol "A(G)I will arrive in 10 years!" --For the past 50+ years, basically. It's a cautionary tale to people who are working in ML to be not too optimistic on "the future", but in my opinion being cautiously optimistic(not on AGI though) isn't harmful by itself, and I stand by that. Well at least until we hit the next wall and plunge everyone into another AI winter(fourth? fifth?) again. As a plus, we do ac…

Kurzweil gets a lot of flack for this sort of thing, he's generally presented as the ridiculous hype man for AI. And yet, he bet in 2002 that an AI would pass the Turing test by 2029. (And this is actually a more conservative prediction than "we will have AGI by 2029.") And looking at GPT3 it seems like he is probably going to win that bet.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#272

Post by Satam »

dang wrote: post #260

We changed the URL from https://www.pcmag.com/news/chatgpt-passes-google-coding-inte... to the article it points to Submitters: " Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The new article doesn't match at all the topic of the previous article.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#273

Post by hackerlight »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #205
pixl97 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you making these assumptions? Do you believe that human intelligence is based on something ethereal that cannot be recreated by machines, and if so, why?

LLMs are statistical models. All it does is guess word sequences in response to prompts, like a 'roided out version of autocomplete. (This is why it hallucinates imaginary facts.) It has no ability to conceptualize or reason nor is there any credible proposal for a path forward to graft reasoning onto it. The training data can be tweaked and more compute hours can be thrown at LLMs until it no longer makes financial…

This relies on two assumptions, that compute won't get cheaper and there won't be large algorithmic improvements, both of which keep getting proven wrong.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#274

Post by lumb63 »

skellera wrote: post #134
WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #62

I think tests should be easy for ChatGPT to pass. It has been trained on data that has the answers and it's good at getting the data. I'm starting to doubt its long term usefulness since it does not seem to have good decision making abilities and even the slightest bit of cognitive ability. I suspect the current crop of AIs will find very specific functions and hit a hard stop. They will change how we function but we…

Doesn’t have to replace an SWE. 10x-ing the ability of 1 engineer is a good enough win. Soon that will be 20-100x. Feels odd to dismiss such a huge breakthrough by saying it’s still not as good as the pinnacle of AI (general AI). Just because the Apple 2 wasn’t a home super computer, didn’t make it less revolutionary.

How is it at present 10x’ing any engineers, and how is it going to 20-100x them? Legitimate question, because my understanding of these tools is they, at present, generate something that you have to entirely vet and have a limited mental model of.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#275

Post by 22SAS »

jahlove wrote: post #258
22SAS wrote: post #5

So, a LLM, trained extensively on StackOverflow and other data (possibly the plethora of LC solutions out there), is fed a bunch of LC questions and spits out the correct solutions? In other news, water is blue. It is one thing to train an AI on megatons of data, for questions which have solutions. The day ChatGPT can build a highly scalable system from scratch, or an ultra-low latency trading system that beats the c…

Your comment is getting some traction on twitter: https://twitter.com/MichaelTrazzi/status/1621973895044636672

Thanks for sharing that with me.

I'd like to respond to this OP (don't have a Twitter account):

https://twitter.com/mSanterre/status/1622015664042164224

I actually have done one of those things. I work in HFT building execution systems for options market making :)

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#276

Post by [deleted] »

hackerlight wrote: post #273
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are statistical models. All it does is guess word sequences in response to prompts, like a 'roided out version of autocomplete. (This is why it hallucinates imaginary facts.) It has no ability to conceptualize or reason nor is there any credible proposal for a path forward to graft reasoning onto it. The training data can be tweaked and more compute hours can be thrown at LLMs until it no longer makes financial…

This relies on two assumptions, that compute won't get cheaper and there won't be large algorithmic improvements, both of which keep getting proven wrong.

[deleted]

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#277

Post by 8note »

pixl97 wrote: post #93
tukantje wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t get junior engineers for solving problems we tend to get them because they grow into other roles.

Ah, yes, that's why when we read programmer forums every engineer says something like "If you want a promotion and more pay move to another company".

And then we hire those juniors as mods from other companies

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#278

Post by ck2 »

I don't think the realworld use of ChatGPT/like bots is going to be high end jobs.

I think it's going to become virtually impossible to chat with a real human being within a few years for almost any customer service.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs can be replaced overnight with enough training and just one or two human supervisors at an extreme high level.

At first it will be "bot assisted humans" until it learns enough, once that database is built everyone will be fired.

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#279

Post by 8note »

bagacrap wrote: post #252
janoc wrote: post #185

I think this says more about the Google interview process than about ChatGPT. That a machine learning model can "bullshit" its way through an interview that is heavily leaning on recall of memorized techniques, algorithms and "stock" problems that have solutions (of various quality) all over Internet is not exactly surprising. Machines will always be able to "cram" better than humans. In practice these questions are…

I see a lot of criticism towards modern software engineer interviewing techniques, but never a solution offered that would catch and reject BS. Your comment comes off as "hire a person because you get along with them, don't worry if they can't write a function that accomplishes a simple task".

In the google case, the interview should be considering that the best candidates will be using chat ai to augment their work, and assign harder tasks and allow use of the ai.

Somebody who can't use the chat tools no longer meets the bar

Re: Google testing ChatGPT-like chatbot 'Apprentice Bard' with employees

#280

Post by vbezhenar »

22SAS wrote: post #5

So, a LLM, trained extensively on StackOverflow and other data (possibly the plethora of LC solutions out there), is fed a bunch of LC questions and spits out the correct solutions? In other news, water is blue. It is one thing to train an AI on megatons of data, for questions which have solutions. The day ChatGPT can build a highly scalable system from scratch, or an ultra-low latency trading system that beats the c…

I tinkered with ChatGPT. There're some isolated components which I wrote recently and I asked Chat to write them.

It either produced working solution or something similar to working solution.

I followed with more prompts to fix issues.

In the end I got working code. This code wouldn't pass my review. It was written with bad performance. It sometimes used deprecated functions. So at this moment I consider myself better programmer than ChatGPT.

But the fact that it produced working code still astonishes me.

ChatGPT needs working feedback cycle. It needs to be able to write code, compile it, fix errors, write tests, fix code for tests to pass. Run profiler, determine hot code. Optimize that code. Apply some automated refactorings. Run some linters. Run some code quality tools.

I believe that all this is doable today. It just needs some work to glue everything together.

Right now it produces code as unsupervised junior.

With modern tools it'll produce code as good junior. And that's already incredibly impressive if you ask me.

And I'm absolutely not sure what it'll do in 10 years. AI improves at alarming rate.

Post reply on HN