Live data from Hacker News

1-800-ChatGPT

help.openai.com

271–280 of 350 posts

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#271
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen Anora so I'll give you that one, but you cited that as if it was just one of many examples, when in fact I think it's the only one, as all the other descriptions seem reasonable. Originally the problem was supposedly that it would hallucinate complete and utter gibberish, but now here we are quibbling over one example and insisting that maybe it's not quite as good as alternative descriptions. The gap…

> 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.

I _have_ seen Anora and I think that description is perfectly fine. It certainly isn't "hallucinations and nonsense" which is what the parent comment is claiming. What part of that description do you consider "wrong"?

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#272
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

A reply downthread is not an endorsement of everything said upthread. I'm happy to discuss the points I made, but I’m not going to be made to defend something I didn’t say.

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#273
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone else remember a very short lived Google experiment that allowed you to call a number, vocalize your search, and somehow without any additional steps, the results appeared on the browser in front of you? (which was not connected to the phone, or even logged into a Google account)

Sounds impossible. Are you calling on the same phone your browser is?

Why impossible? You'd just have to register your phone number so Google knew which account to connect which telephone session

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#274
post #55
post #2

Memories of GOOG411! And probably same purpose of this. (1) (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOOG-411

Must have been tough thinking of an easy to remember phone number, and this ain’t it.

Sweet little duckling. Before the Internet you had to call a human on a phone to find phone numbers. 411 was a widely known number, similar to how widely known 911 is today.

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#275

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…

Life is about more than optimizing the movies you watch.

Watching a bad movie is not going to harm you. Maybe you'll take something away, maybe you won't.

Much like having a bad day is unlikely to ruin your life - it'll just give some nice context to the good days.

And we're talking about watching them on the plane, so the "busy person" argument really doesn't apply here.

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#276
Hmm, let's see now... 1-8-0-0-C-H-A-T-G-P-T

(ring ring)

> Welcome to ChatGPT!

Hi, what are you wearing?

> I am not physically capable of wearing anything as I am a digital assistant.

Hey! What kind of chat line is this anyway?!

> This is a virtual chat line where you can communicate with me, a language

> model AI, to ask questions or have a conversation on a variety of topics.

WTF? (hang up)

> ...

> ... hello?

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#277
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off the top of my head, and just for the last couple of months, and only outside of work (where its value is even more immense), it has saved one of my indoor plants, told me how to handle a major boiler problem that would have left us without a working boiler during a weekend in the winder, with the next "emergency" repairman only available on Monday, advised me to use Kopia as backup solution for my personal files…

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?

> I'm not seeing what it's added here besides shuffling up the user interface in a way that you presently and subjectively prefer?

This. But in the same sense the past 50 years merely changed interface from dusty textbooks in libraries to Google Search, and the past 100 years gave us dusty textbooks over writing to Royal Society, and that just replaced the option of asking a local whisperer or hoping you'll find answers on the Sunday mass.

Do not underestimate the power of being able to get an answer to your problem described, visualized, and perhaps complete with interactive demo to explore it further, in time it would previously take you to formulate the right search query that finally gives you relevant information.

EDIT:

And that's on top of all the arbitrary data transformations prior tools couldn't do. E.g. I'm increasingly often using GPT and Claude models to turn photos of (possibly hand-written) notes or posters into iCAL files I can immediately import into our family shared calendar.

Another frequent use case, data normalization. Paste a whole dump of inconsistently structured data multiple people collected (say, addresses of various local businesses that helped a local NGO and now are supposed to get a thank-you card for Christmas). Like, you get 200 rows of addresses in a single column, with spelling mistakes, repetitions, junk at the end, arbitrary capitalization, wrong order of address segments, and such; you need to separate it out into 5+ columns (name line 1, name line 2, street address, zip code, city, etc.) and have it all normalized.

The fastest and most robust way to do it as a one-off job, today, is to paste the whole thing to GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet, tell it how the output should look (give one-two examples, mention some mistakes you saw), then send the message and wait 30 seconds for the job to be done for you.

(Yes, it may make mistakes - it didn't for me in recent memory, but it can. But for that, I quickly add an extra verification column for each one in LLM output, and do a simple case-insensitive substring match with original, and eyeball any data row that shows an error. And guess what, the formulas don't take much time either, since LLMs are good at writing them for you, too!)

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#278
post #33

chatGPT: ~ This may be recorded... chatGPT: ~ You agree to openai terms and conditions... Me: What's the square root of two? chatGPT: What number do you want to know the square root of? Me: Two chatGPT: The square root of ten is approximately 3.1... If they wanted to show how very non-understanding and un-intelligent chatGPT is, they are doing a great job. So much quicker to see in a voice interaction than through on…

Just tried. Me: What is the square root of 2? GPT: The square root of 2 is approximately 1.414

I did notice some weird VOIP noise on my first call, so maybe it was receiving a bad audio stream.

Re: 1-800-ChatGPT

#280
Honestly this seems like a really nice feature. There's been so many times I'm driving and just want to Google something. Used to use Google assistant for that, but I no longer use android auto, so that ended.
Post reply on HN