421–430 of 461 posts
> bad behaviour isn’t caused by any single bad piece of data, but by the combined effects of significant fractions of the dataset Related opposing data point to this statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45529587
I don't understand the "your boss" framing of this article, or more accurately, the title of this article. The article contents don't actually seem to have anything to do with management specifically. Is the reader is meant to believe that not being scared of AI is a characteristic of the managerial class? Is the unstated implication that there is some class warfare angle and anybody who isn't against AI is against l…
> Is the unstated implication that there is some class warfare angle and anybody who isn't against AI is against laborers? I didn't read it that way. I read "your boss" as basically meaning any non-technical person who may not understand the challenges of harnessing LLMs compared to traditional, (more) deterministic software development.
I don't understand the "your boss" framing of this article, or more accurately, the title of this article. The article contents don't actually seem to have anything to do with management specifically. Is the reader is meant to believe that not being scared of AI is a characteristic of the managerial class? Is the unstated implication that there is some class warfare angle and anybody who isn't against AI is against l…
Indeed, from reading the article I could really see any discussion of "your boss", so I changed the title to something more representative, and a condensed version of a phrase from the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"AI will take over the world". I hear that. Then I try to use AI for simple code task, writing unit tests for a class, very similar to other unit tests. If fails miserably. Forgets to add an annotation and enters in a death loop of bullshit code generation. Generates test classes that tests failed test classes that test failed test classes and so on. Fascinating to watch. I wonder how much CO2 it generated while fryi…
Given that AI couldn't even speak English 6 years ago, do you really think it's going to struggle with unit tests for the next 20 years? It's well worth looking at https://progress.openai.com/ , here's a snippet: > human: Are you actually conscious under anesthesia? > GPT-1 (2018): i did n't . " you 're awake . > GPT-3 (2021): There is no single answer to this question since anesthesia can be administered [...]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should move well beyond human analogies. I have never met a human that would straight up lie about something, or build up so much deceptive tests that it might as well be lying. Granted this is not super common in these tools, but it is essentially unheard of in junior devs.
> Granted this is not super common in these tools, but it is essentially unheard of in junior devs. I wonder if it's unheard of in junior devs because they're all saints, or because they're not talented enough to get away with it?
> nobody knows precisely what to do to ensure an AI writes formal emails correctly or summarises text accurately. This is a bit of a hyperbole, a lot of the recent approaches rely on MoE, that are specialized. This makes it much more usuable for simple usecases.
> In regular software, vulnerabilities are caused by mistakes in the lines of code that make up the software > in modern AI systems, vulnerabilities or bugs are usually caused by problems in the data used to train an AI In regular software, vulnerabilities are caused by lack of experience, therefor lack of proper training materials.
In the limit, everyone has a lack of experience (compared to their future selves). This sentence proves too much (https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/)
I think your post is fundamentally wrong. See, you are comparing AI responses with the written code, which may not be the fair comparison. I see it as, better you could compare code generated by AI vs the code written by an engineer.
> It’s entirely possible that some dangerous capability is hidden in ChatGPT, but nobody’s figured out the right prompt just yet. This sounds a little dramatic. The capabilities of ChatGPT are known. It generates text and images. The qualities of the content of the generated text and images is not fully known.
There's a big difference between generating text which does someone's homework and text which changes peoples opinion about the world (e.g. the r/changemyview experiment done by Meta, in which their AI was better than almost all humans (it was 99th percentile) at changing peoples view, and not a single user was able to spot it as being AI[1])
If you're disagreeing with the precise wording of "capabilities" vs "qualities of the content", then sure, use whatever words make sense to you. But I don't think that's an interesting discussion to have.
I stand by my original statement.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1k8b2hj/meta_...