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

501–510 of 766 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#501

Post by Dilettante_ »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #490
Dilettante_ wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>with blockchain your intermediary is the exchange, the developers of the cryptocurrency, etc. You are mistaken. The transfer of cryptocurrencies takes place on the blockchain ledger. That's, like, the core "thing". If you choose to bank with an exchange, that's like you bringing your cash money to a regular bank and depositing it. And the developers are no more intermediaries to your transaction than the Mint is an…

I'm not mistaken. For an average person, they need to: 1. Understand how to use the technology and onboard onto it. In this case the technology is whichever blockchain and cryptocurrency. 2. Convert their money into the cryptocurrency. For this they need an exchange. Then they can send money to others who also went through those steps. Thus, there must be some kind of interaction with documentation made by devs for s…

All of that is entirely besides the point of this thread of conversation, which was concerning the transfer without intermediaries. The point was that if you are in possession of the currency, you are in full control with no one to interfere(or interfere by withholding cooperation) in the way that a bank would.

You also do not need an exchange. You need to find a person willing to trade whatever for your cryptocurrency, exchanges merely make this more convenient but are by no means the only option.

And saying onboarding requires an intermediary is like saying using a powerdrill or hooking up a washing machine requires an intermediary. The knowledge is so widely available and not contingent on a single or even few authorities that it's like picking fruit from a tree. It's just there.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#502

Post by troupo »

keeda wrote: post #280
troupo wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not this again. That study had serious problems. The problem is, there are very few if any other studies. All the hype around LLMs we are supposed to just believe. Any criticism is "this study has serious problems". > It’s like, a robot vacuum might take way longer > Coding work that I used to procrastinate Note how your answer to "the study had serious problems" is totally problem-free analogies and personal anecd…

> The problem is, there are very few if any other studies. Not at all, the METR study just got a ton of attention. There are tons out there at much larger scales, almost all of them showing significant productivity boosts for various measures of "productivity". If you stick to the standard of "Randomly controlled trials on real-world tasks" here are a few: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4945566 (…

Thank you!

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbDDYKRFjhk (from Stanford, not an RCT, but the largest scale with actual commits from 100K developers across 600+ companies, and tries to account for reworking AI output. Same guys behind the "ghost engineers" story.)

I like this one a lot, though I just skimmed through it. At 11:58 they talk about what many find correlates with their personal experience. It talks about easy vs complex in greenfield vs brownfield.

> They all find productivity boosts in the 15 - 30% range -- with a ton of nuance, of course.

Or 5-30% with "Ai is likely to reduce productivity in high complexity tasks" ;) But yeah, a ton nuance is needed

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#504

Post by scrollaway »

jasonsb wrote: post #82
jsheard wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My personal productivity has skyrocketed in the last 12 months. Has your productivity objectively, measurably improved or does it just feel like it has improved? Recall the METR study which caught programmers self-reporting they were 20% faster with AI when they were actually 20% slower.

Objectively. I’m now tackling tasks I wouldn’t have even considered two or three years ago, but the biggest breakthrough has been overcoming procrastination. When AI handles over 50% of the work, there’s a 90% chance I’ll finish the entire task faster than it would normally take me just to get started on something new.

Incredible how many people here just don’t believe you because it doesn’t reflect their personal experience.

I want to second your experience as I’ve had the same as well. Tackling SO many more tasks than before and at such a crazy pace. I’ve started entire businesses I wouldn’t have just because of AI.

But at the same time, some people have weird blockers and just can’t use AI. I don’t know what it is about it - maybe it’s a mental block? Wrong frame of mind? It’s those same people who end up saying “I spend more time fighting the ai and refining prompts than I would on the end task”.

I’m very curious what it is that actually causes this divide.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#505

Post by latexr »

eru wrote: post #446
kenjackson wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I had this long standing dispute that I just never had the energy to look up what needed to be done to resolve it. I just told it to ChatGPT and it generated everything -- including the emails I needed to send and who to send them to. Two weeks later and it was taken care of. I had sat on it for literally 3 months until then. If I could have something that said, "Here are some things that it looks like you're p…

Yes, it's also useful against writer's block. (Which might be a subset of ADHD, I don't know?) For many people, it's easier to improve a bad first version of a piece of writing than to start from scratch. Even current mediocre LLM are great at writing bad first drafts.

> Even current mediocre LLM are great at writing bad first drafts.

Anyone is great at creating a bad first draft. You don’t need help to create something bad, that’s why that’s a common tip. Dan Harmon is constantly hammering on that advice for writer’s block: “prove you’re a bad writer”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVqYUaUO1cQ

If you get an LLM to write a first draft for you, it’ll be full of ideas which aren’t yours which will condition your writing.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#506

Post by NiceWayToDoIT »

I am so tired of this type of tech, it does not solves anything, but it looks like further pushing and intrusion into privacy, but it is not anymore just reading what we like and want, but trying to push us to do things and sell us things, lately from time I get that urge just to smash all my electronics and go somwwhere in woods (I know it is romantic dream and I would not survive more than 3 days it is just a feeling) ... Travel was interesting when you heard about exotic places and colors and smells, and then you go to experince nowadays they supply you with full pamper plan of what you going to see and experince it is not fun anymore, and all I see is like that Ghibli no-face monster, but instead of giving you money just asking you give-us-money give-us-money, money, moneeey ... then you arrive to destination and there all you get pushy salsmen, fake smiles and all you see give us money money money ...

Edit 1: When I was growing up, a started with tech not because of money but because I belived we will endup in StarTrek society, solving real problems expanding civilisation, older I am all I see is money worshiping cult

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#507

Post by stanac »

komali2 wrote: post #426
gjgtcbkj wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does that mean AI needs to be able to decide "what to do today"? Like wake up in the morning and decide I am going to research a problem in field X and then email all important scientist or institutions with my findings? I am not sure if we want that kind of independent agents, sounds like a beginning of a cyberpunk novel.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#508

Post by latexr »

meowface wrote: post #240
kenjackson wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I had this long standing dispute that I just never had the energy to look up what needed to be done to resolve it. I just told it to ChatGPT and it generated everything -- including the emails I needed to send and who to send them to. Two weeks later and it was taken care of. I had sat on it for literally 3 months until then. If I could have something that said, "Here are some things that it looks like you're p…

Exactly. Agentic LLMs are amazing for people who suffer from chronic akrasia.

Those are exactly the people who shouldn’t use these tools. They’ll be sucked in to whatever bullshit the LLM peddles them and become unable to leave.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#509

Post by sebastiennight »

monsieurbanana wrote: post #74
password54321 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are we near AGI or is it 'just' an LLM? Seems like no one is clear on what these things can and cannot do anymore because everyone is being gaslighted to keep the investment going.

The vast majority of people I've interacted with is clear on that, we are not near AGI. And people saying otherwise are more often than not trying to sell you something, so I just ignore them. CEO's are gonna CEO, it seems their job has morphed into creative writing to maximize funding.

As a CEO, I endorse this message

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#510

Post by sebastiennight »

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…

Would you say that dice have a preference for landing on numbers larger than 2? because I've noticed they tend to do so about two-thirds of the time.
Post reply on HN