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

Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

writings.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 309 posts

Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

#31

Post by Enginerrrd »

hutzlibu wrote: post #23
ilaksh wrote: post #5

I would probably try to integrate the Wolfram Alpha API some way into my AI programmer startup aidev.codes if I could afford their pricing. Says you have to commit to $1000 per year. I certainly can't/won't just pay $1000 up front and I don't know if it will really work without trying it for awhile. If they took off the minimum commitment it would open this up to a lot more people. Believe it or not, there are progra…

"Also the Contact Us thing is a red flag for me." Why is that a red flag and not something you see as potentially finding a custom solution to your need?

Not OP, but I feel similarly and for me it's because the information assymmetry is a deliberate way to give advantage to the seller. I also perceive deliberate lack of transparency as dishonest and exploitative. If you can't give me a price upfront, I probably don't want to do business with you.

That may not be entirely fair, but that is my perception

I also don't like doing business with people I can't trust on a handshake.

Contracts IMO should really only formalize the implicit understanding of expected boundaries to be followed by both parties. If you're the type of person to seek advantage when an unexpected situation comes up, I don't really want to do business with you.

Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

#32

Post by Filligree »

hutzlibu wrote: post #23
ilaksh wrote: post #5

I would probably try to integrate the Wolfram Alpha API some way into my AI programmer startup aidev.codes if I could afford their pricing. Says you have to commit to $1000 per year. I certainly can't/won't just pay $1000 up front and I don't know if it will really work without trying it for awhile. If they took off the minimum commitment it would open this up to a lot more people. Believe it or not, there are progra…

"Also the Contact Us thing is a red flag for me." Why is that a red flag and not something you see as potentially finding a custom solution to your need?

Usually it means there are no cheap options for home experimentation.

Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

#33

Post by buescher »

GloriousKoji wrote: post #26
buescher wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I usually just use google (calculator) for unit conversions, because it is less rigid in what it expects and it returns faster.

google can't calculate to different unit types like wolfram alpha. For example "1.5 cup of uranium in kg" is something wolfram alpha can calculate but nothing else can without extra manual steps.

Yes, and wolfram alpha is loads of fun and super useful in other ways as well, but I still use google calculator for practical unit conversions for the mentioned reasons.

Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

#34

Post by tombert »

I think ChatGPT is pretty neat but I was somewhat less impressed than everyone else is with the code generation. I actually agree with Wolfram for a change; being human like isn’t always “good”.

For example, I asked ChatGPT to give me a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem in Isabelle/Isar. It quickly gave me some very pretty Isar code, and I was extremely impressed.

Until I tried actually inputting it into Isabelle, and nothing worked. I then started reading the proof, and noticed it was making extremely basic algebra mistakes [1] that even a high schooler would be chastised for. Moreover, I even if I allowed these mistakes with “sorry” [2], the conclusion in the proof didn’t actually follow from the steps.

Granted, Fermats Last Theorem is a tricky proof so I understand it struggling with it, but I would have much preferred if it had said “I don’t know how to write proofs in Isabelle” instead of giving something that looks plausible.

[1] it seemed extremely convinced that “a^n + b^n = c^n” could be rewritten as “(a + b)^n - c^n = 0”

[2] “sorry” in Isabelle basically means “assume this is true even if I didn’t prove it. It’s useful but dangerous.

Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

#35

Post by elashri »

ilaksh wrote: post #5

I would probably try to integrate the Wolfram Alpha API some way into my AI programmer startup aidev.codes if I could afford their pricing. Says you have to commit to $1000 per year. I certainly can't/won't just pay $1000 up front and I don't know if it will really work without trying it for awhile. If they took off the minimum commitment it would open this up to a lot more people. Believe it or not, there are progra…

And this for the simple API. For example, id you want what the people here are interested and playing here here you will need the full API. This needs a 10,000 commitment upfront.

Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

#36

Post by kristiandupont »

cs702 wrote: post #21

In the past, I have found Stephen Wolfram's air of superiority off-putting[a], but in this case I find myself nodding in agreement with every point he makes in the OP. I highly recommend you read it. This proposal, in particular, sounds like a great idea for improving ChatGPT in the near term: > ...there’s the immediate opportunity of giving ChatGPT computational knowledge superpowers through Wolfram|Alpha. So it can…

I agree that the prospects of combining the two is very appealing. I do hope that will happen in one way or another.

As for Stephen Wolfram, maybe it's my predisposition but even in this article, I feel like I am sensing not just vanity but also a slight jealousy of ChatGPT's success.

Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

#37

Post by jjtheblunt »

joshxyz wrote: post #9
wswope wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extremely subjective personal take: it’s the walled garden. The Wolfram ecosystem’s cash cow has always been academia. WA/Mathematica are great tools for what they are, but they’re not exactly open or hacker-friendly, nor is there much incentive for them to become that - so while ChatGPT+WA is an interesting concept, it’s hard to foresee it taking off and actually going anywhere.

This. Even as a student I can't use wolfram deeply because it costs so much. It's like toys for people with some amount of $.

there's a student license which is pretty affordable, and your school might have a site license (mine did, and i use the hobbyist license since, also not nuts)

Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

#38

Post by [deleted] »

qwertox wrote: post #29

Off-Topic but important, I wonder when they will fix the following bug: --- This: --- https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2019-04-15+to+2022-01-0... 2 years 8 months 21 days https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2022-01-05+to+2019-04-1... 2 years 8 months 20 days --- versus this: --- https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2019-01-09+to+2022-01-0... 2 years 11 months 27 days https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2022-01-…

[deleted]

Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT

#40

Post by somenameforme »

leoplct wrote: post #10

I always wondered who is the customer of Wolfram Alpha asking for solution of an integral? (A part from students

Shows up regularly in games of various sorts, both making and breaking. Imagine for some simple contrived example that:

Attacking in melee yields a damage of F(strength), let's say F(x^2)

Attacking in range yields a damage of G(dexterity), let's say F(x*10)

It takes 10 attacks to level up to the next tier. Who will output the most damage on their way from tier 0 to 14? Seems like a simple question, but that number is annoying enough to not be obvious, and an integral gives the answer easily. Integrated [0,14] [x^2 = 915] [10x = 980]. So the linear damage still just outpaces the exponential (in terms of total damage done). Their integrals are equal at 15, after which point the exponential takes the lead.

Post reply on HN