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

531–540 of 766 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#531

Post by lelanthran »

sally_glance wrote: post #511
lelanthran wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't sound like you learned it, sounds like it did it for you, using you as the tool. IOW, can you redo it by yourself? If you can't then you did not learn it.

Is that really a fair comparison? I think the amount of people who can memorize each and every configuration item is vanishingly small... even when I was bootstrapping k8s clusters before the dawn of LLMs I had to lookup current documentation and maybe some up to date tutorials. Knowing the abstract steps and tripwires yes, but details will always have to be looked up. If just not to miss any new developments.

> Is that really a fair comparison?

Well, yes it is; you can't very well claim to have learned something if you are unable to do it.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#532

Post by pembrook »

latexr wrote: post #512
ensocode wrote: post #498

In the beginning, I was really curious about ChatGPT—a tool that could save me from useless blogs, pushy products, and research roadblocks. Then it started asking follow-up questions, and I got a bit uneasy… where is this trying to take me? Now it feels like the goal is to pull me into a discussion, ultimately consulting me on what? Buy something? Think something? It’s sad to see something so promising turn into an a…

Don’t forget that Sam Altman is also the cryptocurrency scammer who wants your biometric information. The goal was and will always be personal wealth and power, not helping others. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...

I lol'd at this. And he eats babies!

Yea, humans tend to optimize for their own individual success. Do you not?

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#533

Post by jraby3 »

jwr wrote: post #520

I don't understand how anyone would entrust OpenAI with private data about their entire life. Do people not care about privacy at all? Is everybody OK with being advertising/targeting meat? This sort of thing might arguably be useful, but only with local data processing.

The benefit outweighs the lack of privacy.

I just uploaded recent blood tests and other health info into ChatGPT and then had it analyze what I could do to improve my health, specifically cholesterol and sugar. Then asked it to red team its advice and provide me with one or two things that would generate 80% of the results.

It's pretty awesome having a private doctor that's read every study out there and then can generate advice that will make me live longer and healthier. My doctor certainly doesn't do that. As long as I'm in normal range he doesn't say anything.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#534

Post by _9ptr »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #397
lxgr wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but sticking with that analogy, bicycles haven’t caused the muscles of people that used to go for walks and runs to atrophy either – they now just go much longer distances in the same time, with less joint damage and more change in scenery :)

>> Whatever your mind believes it doesn’t need to hold on to that what is expensive to maintain and run, it’ll let go of. This isn’t entirely accurate from a neuroscience perspective but it’s kinda ballpark. >> Pretty much like muscles decay when we stop using them. > Sure, but sticking with that analogy, bicycles haven’t caused the muscles of people that used to go for walks and runs to atrophy either ... This is an…

Thanks for putting the citation for the Tour de France. I wouldn't have believed you otherwise.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#535

Post by shafyy »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #148
shafyy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lines of codes is not a measure of anything meaningful on its own. The mere fact that you suggest this as prove that you are more productive makes me think you are not.

The SWE industry is eagerly awaiting your proposed accurate metric. I find that people who dismiss LoC out of hand without supplying better metrics tend to be low performers trying to run for cover.

> low performers trying to run for cover

Oh no, you've caught me.

On a serious note: LoC can be useful in certain cases (e.g. to estimate the complexity of a code base before you dive in, even though it's imperfect here, too). But, as other have said, it's not a good metric for the quality of a software. If anything, I would say fewer LoC is a better indication of high quality software (but again, not very useful metric).

There is no simple way to just look at the code and draw conclusions about the quality or usefulness of a piece of software. It depends on sooo many factors. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either naive or lying.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#536

Post by salviati »

ensocode wrote: post #498

In the beginning, I was really curious about ChatGPT—a tool that could save me from useless blogs, pushy products, and research roadblocks. Then it started asking follow-up questions, and I got a bit uneasy… where is this trying to take me? Now it feels like the goal is to pull me into a discussion, ultimately consulting me on what? Buy something? Think something? It’s sad to see something so promising turn into an a…

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is there any conversation where this behaviour occurred that you feel comfortable sharing?

I haven't observed it, and I'd be curious to understand if I've missed it, or if me and you evaluate things differently.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#537

Post by Sayrus »

pembrook wrote: post #532
latexr wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget that Sam Altman is also the cryptocurrency scammer who wants your biometric information. The goal was and will always be personal wealth and power, not helping others. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...

I lol'd at this. And he eats babies! Yea, humans tend to optimize for their own individual success. Do you not?

Some actually promote ideas and defend ideals, individual "success" doesn't always correlates with fulfilment. For instance, working for a non-profit, providing help and food to people who need it, helping associations live or creating a company that maximize doing good instead of profit.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#539

Post by gyomu »

salviati wrote: post #536
ensocode wrote: post #498

In the beginning, I was really curious about ChatGPT—a tool that could save me from useless blogs, pushy products, and research roadblocks. Then it started asking follow-up questions, and I got a bit uneasy… where is this trying to take me? Now it feels like the goal is to pull me into a discussion, ultimately consulting me on what? Buy something? Think something? It’s sad to see something so promising turn into an a…

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is there any conversation where this behaviour occurred that you feel comfortable sharing? I haven't observed it, and I'd be curious to understand if I've missed it, or if me and you evaluate things differently.

Their point is that ChatGPT is clearly maximizing for engagement with the product, rather than working as a straightforward tool that aims to solve your problem at hand as fast and efficiently as possible.

The decision to begin every response with “that’s a fascinating observation” and end every response with “want me to do X?” is a clear decision by PMs at OpenAI.

Poster is questioning what might motivate those decisions.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#540

Post by latexr »

pembrook wrote: post #532
latexr wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget that Sam Altman is also the cryptocurrency scammer who wants your biometric information. The goal was and will always be personal wealth and power, not helping others. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...

I lol'd at this. And he eats babies! Yea, humans tend to optimize for their own individual success. Do you not?

> Do you not?

At the expense of and with complete disregard for others, while telling them I’m doing it altruistically for their own good? I don’t, no. Do you?

Post reply on HN