Live data from Hacker News

GPT is all you need for the back end

github.com

41–50 of 278 posts

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#41

Yes I could do that. I could indeed invoke something that requires god-knows how many tensor cores, vram, not to mention the power requirements of all that hardware, in order to power a simple CRUD App. Or, I could not do that, and instead have it done by a sub-100-lines python script, running on a battery powered Pi.

[deleted]

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't actually think this is serious, do you?

I promise that even if this is a joke, people will see this and take it seriously, implement it and preach it seriously to other people. It's impossible to make jokes online if you don't want to have harmful effect on the world.

Jokes are what led to Donald Trump running for president.

Now, this joke will lead to BE work that is abysmally optimized but some MBA will instead throw hardware at the problem and call it a day.

Congrats, you've been replaced by AI!

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#45
post #34
post #27

Even if this is not 100% serious, it is really starting to feel like the ship computer from star trek is not too far away.

The closer we seem to get the farther we actually are. We're far away from AGI, if we even can reach it with our current approaches, but the latest iterations of "AI" are really good at making people believe it'll be there in 2 years

ChatGPT is great at pretending it knows its sh*t.

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#46
post #34
post #27

Even if this is not 100% serious, it is really starting to feel like the ship computer from star trek is not too far away.

The closer we seem to get the farther we actually are. We're far away from AGI, if we even can reach it with our current approaches, but the latest iterations of "AI" are really good at making people believe it'll be there in 2 years

There’s a parallel with self driving cars. We could make them go around a track autonomously in 2007, and so a lot of people were thinking “how much harder could it be to get this driving anywhere? We will have these everywhere in 5 years!”

15 years later and we are perpetually “5 years out”. Yes you can take a taxi ride in a closed circuit, but that’s much closer to where we were in 2007 than where we thought we’d be today, and it took 15 years to get here.

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#47
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closer we seem to get the farther we actually are. We're far away from AGI, if we even can reach it with our current approaches, but the latest iterations of "AI" are really good at making people believe it'll be there in 2 years

There’s a parallel with self driving cars. We could make them go around a track autonomously in 2007, and so a lot of people were thinking “how much harder could it be to get this driving anywhere? We will have these everywhere in 5 years!” 15 years later and we are perpetually “5 years out”. Yes you can take a taxi ride in a closed circuit, but that’s much closer to where we were in 2007 than where we thought we’d b…

Unless you consider Phoenix or San Francisco to be "closed tracks", that's 100% factually wrong.

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#48
post #45
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closer we seem to get the farther we actually are. We're far away from AGI, if we even can reach it with our current approaches, but the latest iterations of "AI" are really good at making people believe it'll be there in 2 years

ChatGPT is great at pretending it knows its sh*t.

Seems pretty human to me.

Re: GPT is all you need for the back end

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a parallel with self driving cars. We could make them go around a track autonomously in 2007, and so a lot of people were thinking “how much harder could it be to get this driving anywhere? We will have these everywhere in 5 years!” 15 years later and we are perpetually “5 years out”. Yes you can take a taxi ride in a closed circuit, but that’s much closer to where we were in 2007 than where we thought we’d b…

Unless you consider Phoenix or San Francisco to be "closed tracks", that's 100% factually wrong.

Yes, I do. The point is we didn’t solve the general case, we just learned how to scale the specific case that was demoed in 2007. This is like building a ladder to the moon; it’ll get you closer, but it’ll never get you to the moon.
Post reply on HN