41–50 of 309 posts
Of course Stephen Wolfram would (implicitly) beat me to this hot take: Wolfram Alpha is, and has been, more impressive in its domains than ChatGPT is at anything in particular.
It's rotten moss crushed deep into the permafrost:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
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…
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…
[deleted]
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 n…
Wolfram alpha is super useful for crazy unit conversions, I would love ChatGPT to be able to answer how many bananas of solar radiation are required to kill all the bacteria on an acre of concrete.
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.
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.
Not sure why this isn't triggering any discussion? I recall reading a QuantaMagazine issue about combining a Cyc-like (old school AI database https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc ) with GPT-2: https://www.quantamagazine.org/common-sense-comes-to-compute... they had some success improving "common sense" in AI. Combining Mathematica with ChatGPT would be similar and could improve these new AI reliability.
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 n…
specifically on code generation, even if it could produce the correct code, it's basically faster horses: if you ask a programmer what they want, it's something to generate rote code for them so they don't have to write it... but that's the wrong problem. The problem is not that code is hard to write, or that we don't have enough code, it's that we have too much code and need to write code to solve previously solved problems in the first place.
The future is platforms like Retool that reduce the need to write code, the future is businesses producing less code, the future is businesses producing code to solve new problems -- which an LLM can't do. If code has been written so many times that a language learning model can output it, why on earth are we still producing it (whether that's writing it or inducing a robot to output it)?
Code generation might be a fun novelty for a little while but it's not the future, it'll be a distant memory soon enough.
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 n…
It's quickly apparent that the people impressed with ChatGPT's code are generally solving pretty toy problems and want an alternative to SO for "how to do X".
If we could automate away engineers that’s fine with me, but i just don’t think that ChatGPT is there yet. I actually think Wolfram is kind of onto something with having ChatGPT work with Alpha to be used for stuff that has “objective” answers.