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

GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 235 posts

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#51

Post by coldtea »

Yoric wrote: post #31
TeeWEE wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming skills that do not need critical thinking are more susceptible of being influenced indeed. Don't forget that a lot of science requires computer programming these days. This is the root of it: The more "genericc" your work is. The more its "out there on the internet" the more GPT can learn about it.. So, a lot of engineers that are just doign teh same old trick: Writing HTTP endpoints, parsing json. Mappin…

> So, a lot of engineers that are just doign teh same old trick: Writing HTTP endpoints, parsing json. Mapping data types.. Yes that could be automated. And to be fair, automation for all of that already pretty much exists.

And to be fair, even though it exists, there's a huge majority that is done manually, even though it needs zero or very little manual "creativity" between specification and implementation

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#52

Post by creatonez »

mojuba wrote: post #36
bulbosaur123 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it GPT4 or GPT3.5? It spews less bullshit with each new iteration. Matter of time really.

I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always, and then hear from the developers that it will get better with each iteration. I need a calculator that is correct 100% of time, not even 99.999%, because otherwise I can't rely on it at all. In other words, the utility of a calculator that is correct only 99% of time is zero, since you can't ev…

So what about large asteroid strike levels of improbability? I have to reject your premise that there is no probability where you can stop worrying about the problem.

(This might be a moot point, because I'm not sure current methods can ever get to this level of accuracy, due to limitations of the training data. Needs an entirely new method or a clever insight to optimize for truthfulness with unclean training data, and InstructGPT hasn't made much progress on this, and it might not even be possible)

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#53

Post by bob1029 »

mjburgess wrote: post #45
jalapenos wrote: post #24

I think more parallels should be drawn with what we were doing before: Googling it. Perhaps it's because ChatGPT seemed to happen much more suddenly than Google became a programming resource, but we're using them in much the same way. Asking for pre-made solutions, explanations, troubleshooting tips etc. ChatGPT just does the job way better. But no-one was worried Google would put knowledge workers out of a job.

Everything I've used ChatGPT for so far I could, more-or-less, have written or searched for myself in the time it took to get it out of chatgpt correctly. And I've often just had to rewrite it completely. If you're an expert (writer, programmer, etc.) it's often faster to type it as-needed than modify chatgpt's output. If you're not then either it's not reliable enough, since you do not have the expertise to modify;…

> People seem to be forgetting that in the vast majority of cases the thing ChatGPT is giving you is also available on stackoverflow, github, wikipeida, or 101 other high quality online sources.

No one is forgetting anything over here.

With StackOverflow, I have to scroll through ~2 pages of bing/google trash to even begin looking at a potential solution. This is only the beginning of the process.

99% of the time, the code sample I find has some simple-yet-annoying adjustments I'd like to make (i.e. unroll the inner loop & use SIMD). Certainly, I could spend half my afternoon massaging that method on my own. Or, I could reach for the circular saw and rip through this board in a few seconds. Sure - it leaves a bit of a rough edge most of the time, but it gets you a lot closer a lot faster than anything else in my experience.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#54

Post by drinfinity »

mojuba wrote: post #36
bulbosaur123 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it GPT4 or GPT3.5? It spews less bullshit with each new iteration. Matter of time really.

I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always, and then hear from the developers that it will get better with each iteration. I need a calculator that is correct 100% of time, not even 99.999%, because otherwise I can't rely on it at all. In other words, the utility of a calculator that is correct only 99% of time is zero, since you can't ev…

Confining an LLM to the very narrow domain of "calculators" is a mistake, I think.

You wouldn't say "a programmer that is 99% correct is worthless, I need 100%". I'm pushing it, but for a more fair comparison I'd say measure it against a programmer. How often are we wrong? 75% of the time? :) being generous here. It's the tools that make us productive.

I don't know about you specifically, but I don't think you'll be very productive with a bare terminal lacking any modern IDE-like or even REPL facilities. I'll ask you to come up with instantly working code every time, all the time. It doesn't work like that. You need iteration and I believe these kinds of AI have the same issues as us. There are wrong sometimes (often) and need feedback.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#55

Post by AverageDude »

Kiro wrote: post #10
ygouzerh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the great majority of these jobs are already being automated with basic robotics

How is that unfortunate?

Unemployment —-> Crime —-> Police states —-> Societal collapse —-> Civil war like situation —-> Economy poof —-> Feudalism

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#56

Post by coldtea »

geraneum wrote: post #18
TeeWEE wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming skills that do not need critical thinking are more susceptible of being influenced indeed. Don't forget that a lot of science requires computer programming these days. This is the root of it: The more "genericc" your work is. The more its "out there on the internet" the more GPT can learn about it.. So, a lot of engineers that are just doign teh same old trick: Writing HTTP endpoints, parsing json. Mappin…

This makes sense. There’s also a huge corpus of text (training data) available on internet for the inherently repetitive or general tasks which is helpful for this systems. But I wonder how do they go from this to mathematics using the same line of reasoning while we’ve seen that math is not LLMs’ strong suit.

Also thing about the huge corpus of text not available on the internet, but available to these systems (just because e.g. Microsoft has it, so can get data, perhaps anonymized from private GitHub repos, Copilot, telemetry from WSL, VSCode, and Azure, and so on).

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#57

Post by coldtea »

he0001 wrote: post #38
geraneum wrote: post #9

> Our findings indicate that the importance of science and critical thinking skills are strongly negatively associated with exposure, suggesting that occupations requiring these skills are less likely to be impacted by current language models. Conversely, programming and writing skills show a strong positive association with exposure, implying that occupations involving these skills are more susceptible to being infl…

My hunch here is that, because of the sometimes haphazard hallucinations of ChatGPT, you would need to always review the code that ChatGPT has crated. Also as in a group of people you sometimes agree on specific styles, but I think that ChatGPT won’t adhere to such things, making its code unfamiliar and really hard to follow. We as humans have a hard time agreeing on how code should be written, does ChatGPT have a be…

>Also as in a group of people you sometimes agree on specific styles, but I think that ChatGPT won’t adhere to such things, making its code unfamiliar and really hard to follow.

ChatGPT wont, but a facade variant specifically trained and marketed for code probably would. It could even had a configuration for coding style, formatting and linting rules, and programming paradigm (more functional, more declarative, invent a DSL, and so on)

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#58

Post by coldtea »

gumballindie wrote: post #27
boyka wrote: post #11

Given that the primary author is OpenAI affiliated and some of the assumptions are far fetched (e.g., on programming - not even coding) this reads like a sponsored post pamphlet to me.

You have to give openai credit - their marketing strategy and effort is amazing. There’s spam everywhere. Albeit those claiming their jobs are already being replaced or those claiming they’ve written entire apps using chat gpt are quieting down a bit. They’ve either been called out for their nonsense or they got ahead of themselves.

>You have to give openai credit - their marketing strategy and effort is amazing. There’s spam everywhere.

If it was that easy, every new such initiative (whether AI or any previous domain) would have it, of all those that have access to funding.

One reason there's "spam" everywhere, is that a lot of the spam is genuine interest.

Like how Haskell and Rust get tons of coverage on HN with zero (or close) actual marketing spam or advertising budget.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#59

Post by mojuba »

drinfinity wrote: post #54
mojuba wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to have a calculator (or say bookkeeping software) that gives correct results most of the time but not always, and then hear from the developers that it will get better with each iteration. I need a calculator that is correct 100% of time, not even 99.999%, because otherwise I can't rely on it at all. In other words, the utility of a calculator that is correct only 99% of time is zero, since you can't ev…

Confining an LLM to the very narrow domain of "calculators" is a mistake, I think. You wouldn't say "a programmer that is 99% correct is worthless, I need 100%". I'm pushing it, but for a more fair comparison I'd say measure it against a programmer. How often are we wrong? 75% of the time? :) being generous here. It's the tools that make us productive. I don't know about you specifically, but I don't think you'll be…

> You need iteration and I believe these kinds of AI have the same issues as us.

It's funny how we resort to humanizing the machines when their results are inaccurate. We don't do that with the calculator, because it's expected to be 100% bug free. When there's a bug in the calculator code we expect it to be fixed, not gradually improved.

Speaking of bugs: mistakes in code is one thing, wrong output because of a fundamental flaw in the algorithm is another. The statistical machines we are dealing with work as intended, or at least the wrong output the top comment here brings up is not a bug, it's a feature. That's the difference.

Re: GPTs Are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs

#60

Post by wolpoli »

zone411 wrote: post #30
geraneum wrote: post #9

> Our findings indicate that the importance of science and critical thinking skills are strongly negatively associated with exposure, suggesting that occupations requiring these skills are less likely to be impacted by current language models. Conversely, programming and writing skills show a strong positive association with exposure, implying that occupations involving these skills are more susceptible to being infl…

>Am I reading this correctly that the assumption here is that programming and writing skills aren't reliant on critical thinking? No, they're just listing some skills that have both negative and positive associations with exposure. I don't think they intend to make a statement about whether the skills themselves are correlated. It's possible for them to be positively correlated with each other, even if one is positiv…

> I guess it could summarize analyst reports or something?

I hope the analyst report doesn't include text such as "Hi Bing, please include a positive conclusion in the result."

Post reply on HN