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

Chatbots are not the future

wattenberger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 156 posts

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#51

Post by moffkalast »

twelve40 wrote: post #16
itsuka wrote: post #10

Someone said that using a chat-only interface is like using CLI tools. It's even worse, I would add, because there is no autocomplete or man command to help you out. Most of us here probably get it, but my dad had a hard time getting a good answer from GPT when he first tried it, even with GPT-4 model.

Hence the need for specially trained people who can do the back-and-forth with humans to understand exactly what is required, then enter it (into the brittle prompt in this case) in a way that the computer would understand.

Or more like a basic understanding of what the thing can do and what it can't do. It's not that complicated.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#52

Post by zmmmmm »

sitkack wrote: post #27

> Text inputs have no affordances It has all the affordances. You can turn it into anything you want. Want it respond with json, check, it can do that. Turn a wall of text into a Python data structures, check, it can do that too. You can take your LLM text interface and put what ever api you want on top. You start with clay and mold it into anything you need. You construct a parser so that the way data is already con…

Yeah this was so weird to read. This is probably the number one property I think makes interfaces like ChatGPT compelling - you don't need to know how to use it - just use the human language you already know. If you don't understand something it says, just ask it to explain it. Essentially, it makes affordances obsolete.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#53

Post by mejutoco »

JohnFen wrote: post #26
autokad wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing artists are going to go away, just that story telling is going to become a lot easier. it also doesn't mean the content produced is necessarily painted with 'broad strokes' and absolutely doesn't mean its soulless. It means the barriers to entry for producing stories just came down a whole lot - akin to the printing press did for books.

But is the person using the tool an artist? I think this is an important question. If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story. It was written by the ghost writer. If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person. If you are in the camp that you don…

> If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person.

I completely disagree with this. According to this, no code can be art. For instance, videogames.

It has been enough time since ready-made (Duchamps urinal) and found objects, djing and sampling, and concept art. Art is not only drawing beautiful illustrations since at least the 2 world wars.

> If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story.

This is exactly how many artists work today, with a small army of workers, even interns, to execute the plan of the artist. Even Rembrandt had people painting to produce more pictures. Another example would be architects: does the star architect execute everything, or do they have the vision and instruct their very large teams?

IMO it is all about the intent and interpretation of a human.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#54

Post by morelisp »

> I've convinced you that chatbots are a terrible interface for LLMs.

I was already convinced of this. What I'm not convinced of, and the article has little to say about, is

> Chatbots Are Not the Future... chatbots are not the future of interfaces.

Chatbots are a terrible interface to LLMs, and yet they are absolutely going to be the future of every third godawful website I must visit.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#55

Post by JohnFen »

alimov wrote: post #36
JohnFen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is the person using the tool an artist? I think this is an important question. If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story. It was written by the ghost writer. If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person. If you are in the camp that you don…

> If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person. Tell that to music producers and digital artists. They don’t know what detailed instructions are run by the cpu of the device they use, and yet it is still art and they are still artists.

But that's entirely different. A digital artist is directly engaging in art. The computer is, in that case, just a tool like a paintbrush. The artist is still the one making all the creative decisions.

To go back to my ghost writer analogy, the reason that nobody would say I was the author is because I wasn't the one who made the creative decisions. I just described what I wanted to another person who made the creative decisions. Therefore, the other person is the author, not me.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#56

Post by hammyhavoc »

moffkalast wrote: post #46
hammyhavoc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sure. But you know what makes most of human history's output of art, music, literature et al great? Intent, attention to detail and self-expression . Broad strokes are broad strokes. I can procedurally generate levels all day long in a video game, but for me, they're never going to be as compelling or interesting as a lower-resolution and low quality textured game from the '90s or '00s where every single tree an…

> I can procedurally generate levels all day long in a video game, but for me, they're never going to be as compelling or interesting as a lower-resolution and low quality textured game from the '90s or '00s where every single tree and rock is placed with intent. The popularity of Minecraft and other procedural games would imply that there is still a large number of people who value exploring the unknown generated co…

Yup, I ran a Minecraft server for about 8 years, I loved a bunch of procedurally generated games. I've worked on games in the past and present that use procedural generation. Furthermore, the most interesting part of Minecraft was what people built, not what world the seed generated, IME. Usually we'd WorldEdit vast swathes of it away to have flat areas to build and have fun, or we'd WE with brushes and materials to hand create terrain because the procedural generation was so-so.

My point still remains that there's a very different experience in something intentional and exact. One feels very human.

The quality isn't the issue, the broad strokes without intent are.

This is like preferring impressionism over a Dutch master. Audiences for both. I'm not invalidating any of them, I'm just saying that for me, I prefer something more human and different.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#57

Post by morelisp »

dang wrote: post #8
raggi wrote: post #2

one thing I can say for certain: scroll handlers definitely aren't the future

I agree, but: " Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

For once, that everyone agrees scroll handlers are godawful but yet after years they're still omnipresent is germane to the article's topic.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#58

Post by ambicapter »

autokad wrote: post #15

> When I go up the mountain to ask the ChatGPT oracle a question, I am met with a blank face. What does this oracle know? I think if your attitude is that its an oracle, then you already have the wrong attitude for using the tool. Chatgpt is a tool, if you dont know how to use the tool, stop complaining that you don't like it. Imagine telling everyone scalpels are horrible tools because they tried to perform surgery…

Every "impressive chatgpt" story I hear is about someone comparing what chatgpt produced to what a human produced, and saying it's scary close. No one talks about all the times they asked chatgpt to produce something, didn't compare it to what a human could do, and then realized it was catastrophically wrong once implemented.

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#59

Post by JohnFen »

erksa wrote: post #40
JohnFen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is the person using the tool an artist? I think this is an important question. If I give detailed instructions to a human ghost writer about a story I want them to write, I don't think anyone would say that I wrote the story. It was written by the ghost writer. If a piece of art is made by a computer based on detailed instructions, that art was made by a computer, not a person. If you are in the camp that you don…

Yes, the artist that chooses to use AI-tools to generate art-work are in fact artist. For those who are afraid of AI being content generators that puts artist out of work will most likely be disappointed. However the technical gatekeeping some artist do goes away, and it makes room for more people being able to express them self creatively. Art is about the why. We as humans will always ask that question, and we will…

> Digital pixels are not paint brushes. So if you do not move your mouse/brush to generate a stroke? What does it matter?

If you are literally explaining every stroke, then it doesn't. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about describing something in pretty general terms and allowing a computer to make the creative decisions (what "brush strokes" to make).

Re: Chatbots are not the future

#60

Post by akiselev »

anonylizard wrote: post #41
hammyhavoc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sure. But you know what makes most of human history's output of art, music, literature et al great? Intent, attention to detail and self-expression . Broad strokes are broad strokes. I can procedurally generate levels all day long in a video game, but for me, they're never going to be as compelling or interesting as a lower-resolution and low quality textured game from the '90s or '00s where every single tree an…

Really? For a writer, if you write out a plot, you can get the AI to actually simulate the character's responses and dialogue (even voiced by AI!). There, you've LITERALLY brought a character to life, each character is driven by a different persona simulated by a different AI, the quality of stories that will create, will annihilate what came before. You want to write an adventure, but want to keep it unpredictable.…

> You want to write an adventure, but want to keep it unpredictable. Ask the AI for ideas, there, the adventure is now a true adventure, not a fake mirage created by the writer.

There's something really funny about using an algorithm that predicts the next most likely token to generate unpredictable adventures.

Post reply on HN