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

ChatGPT Pulse

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 766 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#421

Post by iammrpayments »

boc wrote: post #140
swalsh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Blockchain is probably the most useless technology ever invented " Actually AI may be more like blockchain then you give it credit for. Blockchain feels useless to you because you either don't care about or value the use cases it's good for. For those that do, it opens a whole new world they eagerly look forward to. As a coder, it's magical to describe a world, and then to see AI build it. As a copyeditor it may be…

Blockchain is essentially useless. You need legal systems to enforce trust in societies, not code. Otherwise you'll end up with endless $10 wrench attacks until we all agree to let someone else hold our personal wealth for us in a secure, easy-to-access place. We might call it a bank. The end state of crypto is always just a nightmarish dystopia. Wealth isn't created by hoarding digital currency, it's created by prod…

The “$10 wrench attack” isn’t an argument against crypto—it’s an argument against human vulnerability.

By that logic, banks don’t work either, since people get kidnapped and forced to drain accounts. The difference is that with crypto, you can design custody systems (multi-sig, social recovery, hardware wallets, decentralized custody) that make such attacks far less effective than just targeting a centralized bank vault or insider.

As for the “end state” being dystopian, history shows centralized finance has already produced dystopias: hyperinflations, banking crises, mass surveillance, de-banking of political opponents, and global inequality enabled by monetary monopolies. Crypto doesn’t claim to magically create productivity—it creates an alternative infrastructure where value can be exchanged without gatekeepers. Productivity and crypto aren’t at odds: blockchains enable new forms of coordination, ownership, and global markets that can expand productive potential.

People now have the option of choosing between institutional trust and cryptographic trust—or even blending them. Dismissing crypto as doomed to dystopia ignores why it exists: because our current systems already fail millions every day.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#422

Post by Eisenstein »

boogieknite wrote: post #363
r_lee wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean like convoluted agentic stuff, markdown files etc? Or like AI delusion?

the former it started as an approach to a mass legacy code migration. sound idea with potential to save time. i followed along and understood his markdown and agent stuff for analyzing and porting legacy code i reviewed results which apply to my projects. results were mixed bag but i think it saved some time overall. but now i dont get where hes going with his ai aspirations my best attempt to understand is he wants…

I don't know about 'delusion pattern', but a common problem is that the AI wants to be helpful, and the AI is sycophantic, so when you are going down an unproductive path the AI will continue to help you and reinforce whatever you are feeling. This can be very hard to notice if you are an optimistic person who is process oriented, because you can keep working on the process forever and the AI will keep telling you that it is useful. The problem with this of course is that you never know if you are actually creating anything useful or not without real human feedback. If he can't explain what he is doing adequately then ask him to have the AI do it and read that. You should figure out pretty quickly if it is bullshit or not. If he can't get the AI to tell you what it is he is doing, and he can't explain it in a way that makes sense, then alarm bells should ring.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#423

Post by ht_th »

joemazerino wrote: post #416
majormajor wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What home tasks do you use it for? It's hard for me to imagine many. It's not doing the dishes or watering the plants. If I wanted to rearrange the room I could have it mock up some images, I guess...

Figuring out which fertilizer, how often to water and sun placement for the plants is a useful AI request.

Is it? It'll take a while for fertilizer and sun placement to take visually effect, and there's risk that short term effects aren't indicative of long term effects.

How can you verify the recommendations are sound, valid, safe, complete, etc., without trying them out? And trying out unsound, invalid, unsafe, incomplete, etc., recommendations might result in dead plants in a couple of weeks.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#424

Post by iammrpayments »

sumeno wrote: post #269
domatic1 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Blockchain is probably the most useless technology ever invented so useless there is almost $3 Trillion of value on blockchains.

No there isn't. These ridiculous numbers are made up by taking the last price a coin sold for and multiplying it by all coins. If I create a shitcoin with 1 trillion coins and then sell one to a friend for $1 I've suddenly created a coin with $1 trillion in "value"

Good luck with the SEC when you open your exchange

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#425

Post by kyykky »

lxgr wrote: post #242
fbxio wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d love not to have to be great at programming, as much as I enjoy not being great at cleaning the canalization. But I get what you mean, we do lose some potentially valuable skills if we outsource them too often for too long.

It’s probably roughly as problematic as most people not being able to fix even simple problems with their cars themselves these days (i.e., not very).

Everyone needs to have AI to do some minor modification in Excel file?

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#426

Post by komali2 »

gjgtcbkj wrote: post #249
9rx wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitions do vary, but everyone agrees that it requires autonomy. That is ultimately what sets AGI apart from AI. The GPT model alone does not offer autonomy. It only acts in response to explicit input. That's not to say that you couldn't built autonomy on top of GPT, though. In fact, that appears to be exactly what Pulse is trying to accomplish. But Microsoft and OpenAI's contractual agreements state that the auto…

ChatGPT is more antonymous than many humans. Especially poor ones and disabled ones.

How? Chatgpt has no autonomy - it can only act when you type into its chatbox or make an API call. A disabled person can autonomously and independently act towards the world, not just react to it.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#427

Post by supriyo-biswas »

sp4cec0wb0y wrote: post #328
lqstuart wrote: post #181

"AI" is a $100B business, which idiot tech leaders who convinced themselves they were visionaries when interest rates were historically low have convinced themselves will save them from their stagnating growth. It's really cool. The coding tools are neat, they can somewhat reliably write pain in the ass boilerplate and only slightly fuck it up. I don't think they have a place beyond that in a professional setting (no…

How do I save comments in HN? This sums up everything I feel. Beautiful.

Click the comment timestamp, then “favorite” it

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#428

Post by hyperadvanced »

ryukoposting wrote: post #388
xwowsersx wrote: post #13

Google's edge obvious here is the deep integration it already has with calendar, apps, and chats and what not that lets them surface context-rich updates naturally. OpenAI doesn't have that same ecosystem lock-in yet, so to really compete they'll need to get more into those integrations. I think what it comes down to ultimately is that being "just a model" company isn't going to work. Intelligence itself will go to z…

The very models they pioneered are far better at writing code for web than they are at any other domain, leveling the very playing field they're now finding they must compete on. Ironic.

That is pretty funny

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#429

Post by komali2 »

oofbey wrote: post #220
datadrivenangel wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

preference generally has connotations of personhood / intellegence, so saying that a machine prefers something and has preferences is like saying that a shovel enjoys digging... Obviously you can get probability distributions and in an economics sense of revealed preference say that because the model says that the next token it picks is .70 most likely...

A key point of the Turing Test was to stop the debates over what constitutes intelligence or not and define something objectively measurable. Here we are again. If a model has a statistical tendency to recommend python scripts over bash, is that a PREFERENCE? Argue it’s not alive and doesn’t have feelings all you want. But putting that aside, it prefers python. Saying the word preference is meaningless is just pedant…

The Turing Test is just one guy's idea, there's no consensus on sentience that considers it the last word.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#430

Post by Dilettante_ »

oofbey wrote: post #220
datadrivenangel wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

preference generally has connotations of personhood / intellegence, so saying that a machine prefers something and has preferences is like saying that a shovel enjoys digging... Obviously you can get probability distributions and in an economics sense of revealed preference say that because the model says that the next token it picks is .70 most likely...

A key point of the Turing Test was to stop the debates over what constitutes intelligence or not and define something objectively measurable. Here we are again. If a model has a statistical tendency to recommend python scripts over bash, is that a PREFERENCE? Argue it’s not alive and doesn’t have feelings all you want. But putting that aside, it prefers python. Saying the word preference is meaningless is just pedant…

An LLM then has a preference for Python in the same way a gömböc[1] has a preference to land right-side-up. From my side of the argument, calling this a preference like I have a preference for vanilla milkshakes over coke or my dog has a preference for the longer walk over the short one is what seems pedantic. There is a difference, at least in language, between mechanical processes and living beings' decision-making.

Perhaps instead of "preference", "propensity" would be a more broadly applicable term?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6mb%C3%B6c

Post reply on HN