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

Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

holovaty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 451 posts

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#381

Post by tucnak »

Velorivox wrote: post #288
nomel wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in a sane world the folks that run ChatGPT would be falling over themselves to be sure it didn’t happen again This would be a world without generative AI available to the public, at the moment. Requiring perfection would either mean guardrails that would make it useless for most cases, or no LLM access until AGI exists, which are both completely irrational, since many people are finding practical value in its curre…

> which are both completely irrational Really!? [0] https://i.imgur.com/ly5yk9h.png

Your screenshot is conveniently omitting the disclaimer below: "AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more[1]"

[1]: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/14901683

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#382

Post by trealira »

normie3000 wrote: post #308
insane_dreamer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subject can also be the feature itself. active/passive: - The Manage User menu item changes a user's status from active to inactive. - A user's status is changed from active to inactive using the Manage User menu item.

Object-orientated vs subject-orientated?

The passive voice just switches the roles so that the patient is the subject and the agent is the object (e.g. in "The ball was kicked by John," the ball is still the patient despite being the subject). It's just that with English word order, it also switches the places of the things in the sentence.

In languages with more flexible word order, you could just switch the two without passive voice. You could just say the equivalent of "The ball kicked John," with it being clear somehow that the ball is the grammatical object and John the subject, without needing to use the passive voice at all.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#383

Post by wmeredith »

chii wrote: post #306
jll29 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is executives want to completely remove humans from the loop, which almost universally leads to disastrous results Thanks for your words of wisdom, which touch on a very important other point I want to raise: often, we (i.e., developers, researchers) construct a technology that would be helpful and "net benign" if deployed as a tool for humans to use, instead of deploying it in order to replace humans.…

> The big problem is that developers/researchers lose control if these developers/researchers are being paid by someone else, why should that same someone else be giving up the control that they paid for? If these developers/researchers are paying the research themselves (e.g., a startup of their own founding), then why would they ever lose control, unless they sell it?

This is a good point. FAANG or whatever you want to call it now has spent billions hovering up a couple generations' best minds who willing sold their intellect to make endless engagement loops.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#384

Post by wmeredith »

PeterStuer wrote: post #49
oasisbob wrote: post #29

Anyone who has worked at a B2B startup with a rouge sales team won't be surprised at all by quickly pivoting the backlog in response to a hallucinated missing feature.

Rogue? In the B2B space it is standard practice to sell from powerpoints, then quickly develop not just features but whole products if some slideshow got enough traction to elicit a quote. And it's not just startups. Some very big players in this space do this routinely.

Fake it 'til you make is time-tested human strategy.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#385

Post by jsjohnst »

shafyy wrote: post #358
csinode wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is societal, not technological. An end state where people do less work than they do today but society is more productive is desirable, and we shouldn't be trying to force companies/governments/etc to employ people to do an unnecessary job. The problem is that people who are laid off often experience significant life disruption. And people who work in a field that is largely or entirely replaced by te…

> The problem here is societal, not technological. I disagree. I think it's both. Yes, we need good frameworks and incentivizes on a economic/political level. But also, saying that it's not a tech problem is the same as saying "guns don't kill people". The truth is, if there was no AI tech developed, we would not need to regulate it so that greed does not take over. Same with guns.

> The truth is, if there was no AI tech developed, we would not need to regulate it so that greed does not take over.

Same could be said for the Internet as we know it too. Literally replace AI with Internet above and it reads equally true. Some would argue (me included some days) we are worse off as a society ~30 years later. That’s also a legitimate case that can be made it was a huge benefit to society too. Will the same be said of AI in 2042?

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#386

Post by jsjohnst »

Sophira wrote: post #370
visarga wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh the web was full of slop long before LLMs arrived. Nothing new. If anything, AI slop is higher quality than was SEO crap. And of course we can't uninvent AI just like we can't unborn a human.

It depends on the metric you use. Yes, AI text could be considered higher quality than traditional SEO, but at the same time, it's also very much not, because it always sounds like it might be authoritative, but you could be reading something hallucinated. In the end, the text was still only ever made to get visitors to websites, not to provide accurate information.

> it's also very much not, because it always sounds like it might be authoritative, but you could be reading something hallucinated

I keep hearing this repeated over and over as if it’s a unique problem for AI. This is DEFINITELY true of human generated content too.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#387

Post by wmeredith »

spogbiper wrote: post #210
swalsh wrote: post #141

Chatbot advertising has to be one of the most powerful forms of marketing yet. People are basically all the way through the sales pipeline when they land on your page.

makes me wonder how this will be commercialized in the future.. and i don't like it

It's already being commercialized. There is a burgeoning field in the SEO-focused content crowd that is building AIO-focused content because it's driving enormous amounts of traffic.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#388

Post by carlosjobim »

graeme wrote: post #242
carlosjobim wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An LLM will say that you sell your competitors products or that your farm sells freshly harvested strawberries in the middle of winter. There are no limits to what kind of lies an LLM will invent, and a business owner would be a fool to feel responsible for anything an LLM has told people about their business or products. The best LLMs available right in this moment will lie without remorse about bus schedules and ai…

>Likewise if I have a neighbour who is a notorious liar tell me I can find a piece of equipment in a certain hardware store, should I be mad at the store owner when I don't find it there, or should I maybe be mad at my neighbour – the notorious liar? If you are a store own, AND 1. People repeatedly coming in to your shop asking to buy something, AND 2. It is similar to the kinds of things you sell, from the suppliers…

I guarantee that most businesses have nothing against stocking or offering items that people come in and ask them for - but it has to be possible also. If you're asking for a Polish sausage in a hardware store because your neighbour sent you, then they probably don't have the licenses to sell food items, and probably their profit margin is higher selling hardware than selling sausages so they have no reason to start offering them.

There's usually a good reason why a business might not offer something that people think they should offer. Usually it is that they can't be profitable enough at a price point which customers will accept.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#389

Post by avereveard »

throwaway9153 wrote: post #357
dotancohen wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fact people having their jobs replace by technology are completely screwed over is a result of the society we have all created together, it's not a rule of nature. How did the handloom weavers and spinners handle the rise of the machines?

> How did the handloom weavers and spinners handle the rise of the machines? In the past, new jobs appeared that the workers could migrate to. Today, it seems that AI may replace jobs much quicker than before and it's not clear to me which new jobs will be "invented" to balance the loss. Optimists will say that we have always managed to invent new types of work fast enough to reduce the impact to society, but in my o…

I think if we zoom out of the tech and into a bit more of economic the risk I see is that the incumbent hold a lot of advantages and also control the means of production due secondary factors like gpu scarcity.

If we want to draw some parallel this may trigger a robber baron kind of outcome more than an industrial revolution.

The existence of workable open weight models tips me more toward the optimistic outcome

Butthere's trillions at stake now and that must not be discounted it's the kind of wealth accumulation that can easily trigger a war. (And if you thinkit isn't you can look at the oil wars in the 90s and other more recent resources war bring fought in Europe today.

Expect "gpu gap" talks sooner that later, and notice there's a few global power with no horse to race.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#390

Post by ChaoPrayaWave »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #65
kragen wrote: post #30

I've found this to be one of the most useful ways to use (at least) GPT-4 for programming. Instead of telling it how an API works, I make it guess, maybe starting with some example code to which a feature needs to be added. Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. Then I change the API so that its code works. Conversely, I sometimes present it with some existing code and ask it what it does…

I used this to great success just this morning. I told the AI to write me some unit tests. It flailed and failed badly at that task. But how it failed was instructive, and uncovered a bug in the code I wanted to test.

In a way, AI’s failure can be its own kind of debugger. By watching where it stumbles, you sometimes spot flaws you’d have missed otherwise.
Post reply on HN