Live data from Hacker News

Why AI is failing at giving good advice

maximzubarev.com

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Why AI is failing at giving good advice

#31
This is a clunky argument. No problem description under 300 words elicits reasonable or empathetic advice. That's because GPT needs to use in context learning to condition the output to your own frustrating distribution of life bullshit before that output can be empathically constructive.

And that's what talking to a human expert is like too.

One of the most powerful things about GPT is I can give it a huge wall of text about a problem I'm having, the ask it to categorize, critique, prioritize, provide feedback, and ask questions. It invariably gives me a wall of text of empathetic and constructive questions and considerations for me to reflect on, much like a human expert would. I then answer those and reflect and converse in turn. 5 - 15 turns of conversation and a few thousand words later? The problem is freaking SOLVED in a profound and satisfying way. This experience happens over and over if I put the time and discussion in. This is something that DOESN'T happen for me with most humans.. because they can't empathize with me as an autistic person. But GPT is fucking aces in this regard.

The article's author is LITERALLY just being a lazy prompt writer ignoring basic prompting/ICL papers, and being a mushy critical thinker as a result. If he was a decent AI writer and diligent thinker, then he would be able to squeeze the juice and make the cocktail. But he bungles the article and runs it aground of the unfortunate "stochastic parrot /w average priors" argument that everyone adopts if they ignore the insight of "LLMs are in-context learners".

The real problem is he has not crafted any contexts eliciting enough in context learning to let GPT empathize with any actual problem he has. "Help me make money" is different from "here's my business, its fundaments, and a pain point my customer has: [...]. How can we solve this and rise above and beyond the call duty here?"

It's like he goes up to a person, says, "yo what's up?", and the person says, "not much." The author then wonders, "Why didn't this person empathize with the fact that my mom is going through stage 4 cancer and I don't know WTF to do to support her or make peace with it!?!"

It's because you don't communicate enough context to empathize with! It would make amazing suggestions if you actually described the intense emotional turmoil that is alive inside you when you think about losing your mom. But you have to be RAW as FUCK about what you're really feeling! Or there's no "handle" for the AI to grip and rotate the issue around and help with.

And that is the author's fault, rather than GPT's. We know GPT has this limit. It needs ICL to be at its best. We know we have to make it into the expert we need by giving a extensive and descriptive contexts, and critically co-evolving our thinking on the subject like we're working with a real expert.

When I do that, it's easily more helpful than any advocate, therapist, social worker, mentor, or manager I've ever had. And that's saying something profound and life changing.

Re: Why AI is failing at giving good advice

#32
post #22

The true reason is that advice in the real-world is more than just words: truly good advice can only be rooted in the care and experience of another human being. And it's not just the care that the other person has for you, but the understanding that the advice has come from a place of experience of human suffering. In terms of more technical questions like the one in the article, that's rather obvious too: ChatGPT i…

> truly good advice can only be rooted in the care and experience of another human being. And it's not just the care that the other person has for you, but the understanding that the advice has come from a place of experience of human suffering. Can another person give you truly good advice over email? Is it still possible if that person has never met you before, so that the advice is only based on what you have writ…

> How can you then say that email A from the AI is bad, while the exact same email B from a human is truly good?

Why are you asking us these questions when you could instead be asking ChatGPT?

Re: Why AI is failing at giving good advice

#34
Isn't Pieter Levels using AI to build is therapistAI app with pretty good results?

I'm sure it's not perfect, but from what I've seen and heard about it, it seems to be a good springboard for basic "therapy" but not REAL prescribed therapy of course.

Sounds like it is helpful as an entry level to 'therapy' and is only getting better.

Arguably maybe it's because Peter is not using ChatGPT for his model AI.

Re: Why AI is failing at giving good advice

#35
post #27

The true reason is that advice in the real-world is more than just words: truly good advice can only be rooted in the care and experience of another human being. And it's not just the care that the other person has for you, but the understanding that the advice has come from a place of experience of human suffering. In terms of more technical questions like the one in the article, that's rather obvious too: ChatGPT i…

AI models can and do create their own experience, trillions of tokens per month of LLM output with human feedback, it scales a lot. Besides what they learn from humans in chat rooms, they got feedback from code execution, search and other tools. In general AI models embedded in larger systems can have feedback from outside. It is on policy data, like human advice.

At some point you have to decide what you value in life, the originality of singular human experiences or the average aggregate of LLM users. Outside of purely technical problems ai will never be the answer (and in its current state it isn't even good at that)

Personally one interests me way more than the other, I'm not going to read a book about the average experience of an average spelunker, but I'll gladly read Michel Siffre's books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Siffre

Re: Why AI is failing at giving good advice

#36

The true reason is that advice in the real-world is more than just words: truly good advice can only be rooted in the care and experience of another human being. And it's not just the care that the other person has for you, but the understanding that the advice has come from a place of experience of human suffering. In terms of more technical questions like the one in the article, that's rather obvious too: ChatGPT i…

> truly good advice can only be rooted in the care and experience of another human being.

Ideally, but advice can still be good/useful/accurate even when it isn't direct personalized love etc., or else nobody would ever make books, which are arguably deader than an LLM.

Re: Why AI is failing at giving good advice

#37
post #17
post #9

Asking ChatGPT for advice is like asking a genius trickster for advice. There is a chance what they say is 100% true, but the chance that the trickster confidently tells you something entirely made up is definitely there. And that is the main issue. I can trust some friend or co-worker to tell me when they don't know, because they like me and they have no incentive to tell me bullshit — yeah they might look better if…

However—some defenders will say—your friend or co-worker may think they know the answer but be wrong and still give you the wrong information confidently. To which I’d respond that it’s important to not ignore the continuity of life. The person giving you the information may themselves learn they were wrong and let you know later and unprompted . Or you may learn the facts and tell them , thus correcting it for every…

The unprompted part, that's the important bit. If you find out you were wrong in with previous recommendation or advice or just basic info, let me know. Email, text, whatever. I don't think there's enough AI agent ecosystem to support that yet.

Re: Why AI is failing at giving good advice

#38
post #17
post #9

Asking ChatGPT for advice is like asking a genius trickster for advice. There is a chance what they say is 100% true, but the chance that the trickster confidently tells you something entirely made up is definitely there. And that is the main issue. I can trust some friend or co-worker to tell me when they don't know, because they like me and they have no incentive to tell me bullshit — yeah they might look better if…

However—some defenders will say—your friend or co-worker may think they know the answer but be wrong and still give you the wrong information confidently. To which I’d respond that it’s important to not ignore the continuity of life. The person giving you the information may themselves learn they were wrong and let you know later and unprompted . Or you may learn the facts and tell them , thus correcting it for every…

[deleted]

Re: Why AI is failing at giving good advice

#39
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However—some defenders will say—your friend or co-worker may think they know the answer but be wrong and still give you the wrong information confidently. To which I’d respond that it’s important to not ignore the continuity of life. The person giving you the information may themselves learn they were wrong and let you know later and unprompted . Or you may learn the facts and tell them , thus correcting it for every…

The unprompted part, that's the important bit. If you find out you were wrong in with previous recommendation or advice or just basic info, let me know. Email, text, whatever. I don't think there's enough AI agent ecosystem to support that yet.

It seems like the product for this could be a separate model that evaluates statements for truthiness (possibly some other NLP model that correlates to a known source, as well as checking that it doesn’t contradict another known source). This maybe doesn’t have to be an LLM (maybe indeed is a completely independent architecture). LLM output could be run through this model as a final filter, with strictness perhaps defined by user parameters or use case.

It certainly isn’t an easy problem, but it does feel as though it’s structurally solvable. Defining trusted sources vs standard training data seems to be a first step, as well as identifying a means of segmenting domains under which those sources would carry authority.

Re: Why AI is failing at giving good advice

#40
post #32
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> truly good advice can only be rooted in the care and experience of another human being. And it's not just the care that the other person has for you, but the understanding that the advice has come from a place of experience of human suffering. Can another person give you truly good advice over email? Is it still possible if that person has never met you before, so that the advice is only based on what you have writ…

> How can you then say that email A from the AI is bad, while the exact same email B from a human is truly good? Why are you asking us these questions when you could instead be asking ChatGPT?

It's unnecessarily hostile and misguided responses like this that will push a lot of people towards interacting instead with always friendly AI-buddies.

But just like junk food and no exercise softens the body, interacting mostly with overly friendly AI-buddies will soften the mind.

Post reply on HN