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

ChatGPT agent: bridging research and action

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 508 posts

Re: ChatGPT agent: bridging research and action

#351

Post by n2d4 »

amccollum wrote: post #240
n2d4 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> said we'd have self driving cars "in a few years" back in 2015 And they wouldn't have been too far off! Waymo became L4 self-driving in 2021, and has been transporting people in the SF Bay Area without human supervision ever since. There are still barriers — cost, policies, trust — but the technology certainly is here.

People were saying we would all be getting in our cars and taking a nap on our morning commute. We are clearly still a pretty long ways off from self-driving being as ubiquitous as it was claimed it would be.

There are always extremists with absurd timelines on any topic! (Didn't people think we'd be on Mars in 2020?) But this one? In the right cities, plenty of people take a Waymo morning commute every day. I'd say self-driving cars have been pretty successful at meeting people's expectations — or maybe you and I are thinking of different people.

Re: ChatGPT agent: bridging research and action

#352

Post by thunky »

candiddevmike wrote: post #338
NortySpock wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on, people have been writing code with bad, incomplete, flaky, or absent tests since automated testing was invented (possibly before). It's having a good, useful and reliable test suite that separates the sheep from the goats.* Would you rather play whack-a-mole with regressions and Heisenbugs, or ship features? * (Or you use some absurdly good programing language that is hard to get into knots with. I've bee…

Tests are just for the bugs you already know about

They're also there to prevent future bugs.

Re: ChatGPT agent: bridging research and action

#354

Post by zer00eyz »

mlazos wrote: post #327
simantel wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feels kind of odd that almost no one is talking about self-driving now, compared to how hot of a topic it used to be Probably because it's just here now? More people take Waymo than Lyft each day in SF.

Yeah where they have every inch of SF mapped, and then still have human interventions. We were promised no more human drivers like 5-7 years ago at this point.

Human interventions.

High speed connectivity and off vehicle processing for some tasks.

Density of locations to "idle" at.

There are a lot of things that make all these services work that means they can NOT scale.

These are all solvable but we have a compute problem that needs to be addressed before we get there, and I haven't seen any clues that there is anything in the pipeline to help out.

Re: ChatGPT agent: bridging research and action

#355

Post by hx8 »

maxlin wrote: post #243
twalkz wrote: post #30

The "spreadsheet" example video is kind of funny: guy talks about how it normally takes him 4 to 8 hours to put together complicated, data-heavy reports. Now he fires off an agent request, goes to walk his dog, and comes back to a downloadable spreadsheet of dense data, which he pulls up and says "I think it got 98% of the information correct... I just needed to copy / paste a few things. If it can do 90 - 95% of the…

The act of trying to make that 2% appear like "minimal, dismissable" is almost a mass psychosis in the AI world at times it seems like. A few comparisons: >Pressing the button: $1 >Knowing which button to press: $9,999 Those 2% copy-paste changes are the $9.999 and might take as long to find as rest of the work. Also: SCE to AUX.

I also find that validating data can be much faster than calculating data. It's like when you're in algebra class and you're told to "solve for X". Once you find the value for X you plug it into the equation to see if it fits, and it's 10x faster than solving for X originally.

Regardless of if AI generates the spreadsheet or if I generate the spreadsheet, I'm still going to do the same validation steps before I share it with anyone. I might have a 2% error rate on a first draft.

Re: ChatGPT agent: bridging research and action

#356

Post by zer00eyz »

ameliaquining wrote: post #157
danny_codes wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s past the hype curve and into the trough of disillusionment. Over the next 5,10,15 years (who can say?) the tech will mature out of the trough into general adoption. GenAI is the exciting new tech currently riding the initial hype spike. This will die down into the trough of disillusionment as well, probably sometime next year. Like self-driving, people will continue to innovate in the space and the tech will be…

The Gartner hype cycle assumes a single fundamental technical breakthrough, and describes the process of the market figuring out what it is and isn't good for. This isn't straightforwardly applicable to LLMs because the question of what they're good for is a moving target; the foundation models are actually getting more capable every few months, which wasn't true of cryptocurrency or self-driving cars. At least some…

> or if it has, it's too recent to be visible yet

It's very visible.

Silicon Valley, and VC money has a proven formula. Bet on founders and their ideas, deliver them and get rich. Everyone knows the game, we all get it.

Thats how things were going till recently. Then FB came in and threw money at people and they all jumped ship. Google did the same. These are two companies famous for throwing money at things (Oculus, metaverse, G+, quantum computing) and right and proper face planting with them.

Do you really think that any of these people believe deep down that they are going to have some big breath through? Or do you think they all see the writing on the wall and are taking the payday where they can get it?

Re: ChatGPT agent: bridging research and action

#357

Post by zer00eyz »

imiric wrote: post #259
ameliaquining wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gartner hype cycle assumes a single fundamental technical breakthrough, and describes the process of the market figuring out what it is and isn't good for. This isn't straightforwardly applicable to LLMs because the question of what they're good for is a moving target; the foundation models are actually getting more capable every few months, which wasn't true of cryptocurrency or self-driving cars. At least some…

> If scaling doesn't stall out soon, then I honestly have no idea what to expect the visibility curve to look like. We are seeing diminishing returns on scaling already. LLMs released this year have been marginal improvements over their predecessors. Graphs on benchmarks[1] are hitting an asymptote. The improvements we are seeing are related to engineering and value added services. This is why "agents" are the latest…

> We are seeing diminishing returns on scaling already. LLMs released this year have been marginal improvements over their predecessors. Graphs on benchmarks[1] are hitting an asymptote.

This isnt just a software problem. IF you go look at the hardware side you see that same flat line (IPC is flat generation over generation). There are also power and heat problems that are going to require some rather exotic and creative solutions if companies are looking to hardware for gains.

Re: ChatGPT agent: bridging research and action

#359

Post by j_timberlake »

twalkz wrote: post #30

The "spreadsheet" example video is kind of funny: guy talks about how it normally takes him 4 to 8 hours to put together complicated, data-heavy reports. Now he fires off an agent request, goes to walk his dog, and comes back to a downloadable spreadsheet of dense data, which he pulls up and says "I think it got 98% of the information correct... I just needed to copy / paste a few things. If it can do 90 - 95% of the…

"It feels like either finding that 2% that's off (or dealing with 2% error) will be the time consuming part in a lot of cases."

This is the part you have wrong. People just won't do that. They'll save the 8 hours and just deal with 2% error in their work (which reduces as AI models get better). This doesn't work with something with a low error tolerance, but most people aren't building the next Golden Gate Bridge. They'll just fix any problems as they crop up.

Some of you will be screaming right now "THAT'S NOT WORTH IT", as if companies don't already do this to consumers constantly, like losing your luggage at the airport or getting your order wrong. Or just selling you something defective, all of that happens >2% of the time, because companies know customers will just deal-with-it.

Post reply on HN