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

411–420 of 451 posts

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#411

Post by [deleted] »

tucnak wrote: post #394
Velorivox wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't doing anything "conveniently", I was not shown the disclaimer (nor anything else, I assume it mostly failed to load). In any case, if you really believe a disclaimer makes it okay for Google to display blatant misinformation in a first-party capacity, we have little to discuss.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+all+of+oregon+north+of+ne... Show more -> Disclaimer and the feedback buttons are shown at the end. If you bothered enough to read the full response, you would have seen the disclaimer, but you never did, so you haven't. For something to be considered "misinformation," in the very least the subject of speech has to be asserting its truthfulness—and, indeed, Google makes no such clai…

[deleted]

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#412

Post by pvg »

kragen wrote: post #408
pvg wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hectoring someone to 'stop doing this' is not 'starting a conversation', it's just hectoring.

A conversation on the topic certainly did ensue; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44492524 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44493015 . Perhaps you mean to say that this wasn't the intended effect? But it was at least a highly predictable effect. Perhaps it would have gone better for the flamer if they had made the request without flaming not only the author in question and simonw. To me the request in…

There's no analogy or wall of text that makes that comment unshitty and inviting of conversation. It's not a thing one should do on HN because it trashes the place. We resolve this by striving to control our own reflexive dickishness and downvoting/flagging the egregiously dickish comments, which is exactly what happened here.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#413

Post by rustyminnow »

gortok wrote: post #272
lexandstuff wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes you just have to deal with the world as it is, not how you think it should be.

Is it your argument that the folks that make generative AI applications have nothing to improve from this example?

If I were someone who ran ChatGPT then yeah, I'd have something to improve. But most of us aren't, and can't do anything about it - so might as well make lemons into lemonade instead of getting hung up on the obvious and unchangeable fact that our future is filled with AI garbage.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#414

Post by dmoy »

kragen wrote: post #265
dmoy wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the best general advice about which way to turn At the risk of derailing into insane pedantry land, this part is kinda true, so maybe not the best analogy? From routing efficiency: https://www.ge.com/news/reports/ups-drivers-dont-turn-left-p... And also safety: https://www.phly.com/rms/blog/turning-left-at-an-intersectio...

If you always turn right at every intersection, you will just go around and around the same block. Which way you should turn depends on where you want to go.

Right (ha), but that's kinda how one can approach passive voice too?

If you never use passive voice, you will be unable to emphasize the object of the sentence in cases where it might actually be necessary, and end up requiring more words to get the same effect.

If you never make left turns, you end up having to go past one block and make three right turns.

So even though best practices might be to avoid passive language for various reasons, sometimes it is cleaner. And even though best practices are to avoid left turns (for efficiency, safety, etc), sometimes it's worth it to just take the left turn. So even UPS trucks will make left turns, just not nearly as often.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#415

Post by kragen »

pvg wrote: post #412
kragen wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A conversation on the topic certainly did ensue; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44492524 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44493015 . Perhaps you mean to say that this wasn't the intended effect? But it was at least a highly predictable effect. Perhaps it would have gone better for the flamer if they had made the request without flaming not only the author in question and simonw. To me the request in…

There's no analogy or wall of text that makes that comment unshitty and inviting of conversation. It's not a thing one should do on HN because it trashes the place. We resolve this by striving to control our own reflexive dickishness and downvoting/flagging the egregiously dickish comments, which is exactly what happened here.

I agree that it's a dickish, shitty comment, and uninviting of conversation. I don't agree that the reason it's dickish is that comments of the form "Please don't do such and such" are inherently dickish. I think that such comments are uncomfortable but necessary, and tabooing discussion of such conflicts does more harm than good—in addition to the reasons above, it would ensure that only the most disagreeable commenters dare to make them.

Undoubtedly, if you devote the minute and a half required to read my "wall of text" comment above, you will be persuaded by its reasoning.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#416

Post by pvg »

kragen wrote: post #415
pvg wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no analogy or wall of text that makes that comment unshitty and inviting of conversation. It's not a thing one should do on HN because it trashes the place. We resolve this by striving to control our own reflexive dickishness and downvoting/flagging the egregiously dickish comments, which is exactly what happened here.

I agree that it's a dickish, shitty comment, and uninviting of conversation. I don't agree that the reason it's dickish is that comments of the form "Please don't do such and such" are inherently dickish. I think that such comments are uncomfortable but necessary, and tabooing discussion of such conflicts does more harm than good—in addition to the reasons above, it would ensure that only the most disagreeable commen…

I fixed the confusing bit, thanks. I'm not persuaded by the reasoning because I don't see how the reasoning is relevant - we're talking about a specific dickish comment in a specific social place with its specific norms. These are so well understood and established the comment got flagblasted by users and moderator scolded on top of that - effectively the maximum penalty/public shaming an HN comment can get. It's not a hypothetical different context in which some kind of hypothetical value eventually comes from such comments - the bad comment and the bad subthread are concretely in front of us.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#417

Post by kragen »

pvg wrote: post #416
kragen wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's a dickish, shitty comment, and uninviting of conversation. I don't agree that the reason it's dickish is that comments of the form "Please don't do such and such" are inherently dickish. I think that such comments are uncomfortable but necessary, and tabooing discussion of such conflicts does more harm than good—in addition to the reasons above, it would ensure that only the most disagreeable commen…

I fixed the confusing bit, thanks. I'm not persuaded by the reasoning because I don't see how the reasoning is relevant - we're talking about a specific dickish comment in a specific social place with its specific norms. These are so well understood and established the comment got flagblasted by users and moderator scolded on top of that - effectively the maximum penalty/public shaming an HN comment can get. It's not…

I think the non-hypothetical value that came from this comment in this case is that it surfaced good reasons for writers to use generative AI and showed that many people support doing so. I would have liked to see that happen in a much more civil fashion, but I don't think it could happen at all without some openly stated form of the initial objection to writers using generative AI. So I think that's the wrong aspect of the initial comment to taboo.

My concern is that the flagblasting and moderator-scolding, while certainly justified by the comment in question, will cause the collateral damage of discouraging politer versions of such comments in the future. So I think it's worthwhile to affirm that criticizing people's behavior to their face is not in fact inherently dickish, but rather a much better alternative to doing it behind their back, or to finding ways to silently exclude them, or people you suspect of being like them.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#418

Post by kragen »

avereveard wrote: post #389
throwaway9153 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Butt…

The CPU-gap and GPU-gap talks started in 02015 and never ended before the rise of strategic AI: https://www.pcworld.com/article/426879/us-blocks-intel-from-...

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#419

Post by kragen »

trealira wrote: post #382
normie3000 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

While that's true, many of those languages with more flexible word order, such as classical Greek and classical Latin, also have the passive voice. Classical Greek even has a third voice called the "middle voice".
Post reply on HN