Live data from Hacker News

Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

holovaty.com

41–50 of 451 posts

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#42
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…

Great point. Also, it may not be the best possible API designer in the world, but it sure sounds like a good way to forecast what an _average_ developer would expect this API to look like.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#44

That's a very constructive way of responding to AI being hot trash.

I am a bit conflicted about this story, because this was a case when the hallucination is useful.

Amateur musicians often lack just one or two features in the program they use, and the devs won't respond to their pleas.

Adding support for guitar tabs has made OP's product almost certainly more versatile and useful for a larger set of people. Which, IMHO, is a good thing.

But I also get the resentment of "a darn stupid robot made me do it". We don't take kindly to being bossed around by robots.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#46
post #14

I have fun asking Chatbots how to clear the chat and seeing how many refer to non-existent buttons or menu options

I tried asking chat bots about a car problem with a tailgate. They all told me to look for a manual tailgate release. When I responded asking if that model actually had a manual release, they all responded with no, and then some more info suggesting I look for the manual release. None even got close to a useful answer.

The internet doesn't effectively capture detailed knowledge of may aspects of our real world. LLMs have blind spots in those domains because they have no source of knowledge to draw from.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#47
post #10

I find it amusing that it's easier to ship a new feature than to get OpenAI to patch ChatGPT to stop pretending that feature exists (not sure how they would even do that, beyond blocking all mentions of SoundSlice entirely.)

Companies pay good money to panels of potential customers to hear their needs and wants. This is free market research!

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#48
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…

[deleted]

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#49

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.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#50

> ChatGPT was outright lying to people. And making us look bad in the process, setting false expectations about our service. I find it interesting that any user would attribute this issue to Soundslice. As a user, I would be annoyed that GPT is lying and wouldn't think twice about Soundslice looking bad in the process

While AI hallucination problems are widely known to the technical crowd, that's not really the case with the general population. Perhaps that applies to the majority of the user base even. I've certainly known folks who place inordinate amount of trust in AI output, and I could see them misplacing the blame when a "promised" feature doesn't work right.
Post reply on HN