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

Major outages across ChatGPT and API

status.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 617 posts

Re: Major outages across ChatGPT and API

#581

Post by rsynnott »

cainxinth wrote: post #518
wfhBrian wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People constantly recommend Bard to me, but it returns false and/or misleading info almost every time

Gpt-4 has the lowest hallucination rates: > OpenAI’s technologies had the lowest rate, around 3 percent. Systems from Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, hovered around 5 percent. The Claude 2 system offered by Anthropic, an OpenAI rival also based in San Francisco, topped 8 percent. A Google system, Palm chat, had the highest rate at 27 percent. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/06/technology/chatbots-hallu...

I would wonder how they're measuring this, and I'd suspect it varies a lot depending on field.

Re: Major outages across ChatGPT and API

#582

Post by seanhunter »

mst wrote: post #314
seanhunter wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's definitely what a lot of people think the choice is but learned helplessness is not the only option. It ignores the fact that for many many use cases small special-purpose models will perform as well as massive models. For most of your business use cases you don't need a model that can tell you a joke, write a poem, recommend a recipe involving a specific list of ingredients and also describe trig identities i…

I suspect small specific purpose models are actually a better idea for quite a lot of use cases. However you need a bunch more understanding to train and run one. So I expect OpenAI will continue to be seen as the default for "how to do LLM things" and some people and/or companies who actually know what they're doing will use small models as a competitive advantage. Or: OpenAI is going to be 'premium mediocre at lots…

I have a slightly different take. Not all use cases are narrow use cases. OpenAI crushes the broad and/or poorly defined use cases. On those if you tried to train your own inhouse model it would be very expensive and you would produce a significantly inferior model.

Re: Major outages across ChatGPT and API

#583

Post by mst »

seanhunter wrote: post #582
mst wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect small specific purpose models are actually a better idea for quite a lot of use cases. However you need a bunch more understanding to train and run one. So I expect OpenAI will continue to be seen as the default for "how to do LLM things" and some people and/or companies who actually know what they're doing will use small models as a competitive advantage. Or: OpenAI is going to be 'premium mediocre at lots…

I have a slightly different take. Not all use cases are narrow use cases. OpenAI crushes the broad and/or poorly defined use cases. On those if you tried to train your own inhouse model it would be very expensive and you would produce a significantly inferior model.

I'm not sure how my "quite a lot of use cases" and your "not all use cases are narrow use cases" are meaningfully different (slightly) to you.

This isn't a snipe, mind, it's me being unsure if we even disagree, especially given the latter part of your comment seems entirely correct (so far as my limited understanding goes ;).

Re: Major outages across ChatGPT and API

#584

Post by butlike »

Alupis wrote: post #506
nazgul17 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The version with search will give you links to the references it bases its answers on.

You still have to go read the references and comprehend the material to determine if the GPT answer was correct or not. I don't know the name for the effect, but it's similar to when you listen/watch the news. When the news is about a topic you know an awful lot about, it's plainly obvious how wrong they are. Yet... when you know little about the topic, you just trust what you hear even though they're as likely to be…

> You still have to go read the references and comprehend the material

Like...it always has been?

Re: Major outages across ChatGPT and API

#585

Post by butlike »

jakereps wrote: post #579
fennecfoxy wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty counter-intuitive statement. It's like making fun of modern humans for not being able to light their own fire with two sticks, when they lose their lighter wile camping. Or for someone to not know how to sew a rip in their clothes, when the clothing store is closed. Etc.

Not sure how I’m making fun of anything, training wheels inherent purpose is to train you to ride a bike without them. A lighter isn’t meant to teach you how to spontaneously light fires once it’s out of fuel, nor is dropping off clothes at a clothing store going to teach you how to sew.

You don't need to learn to ride a bike if you prefer motorcycles.

Re: Major outages across ChatGPT and API

#587

Post by sebastiennight »

mawadev wrote: post #193

I noticed the outage. It feels like a lot of people use it like training wheels on a bicycle until they forget how to ride without it.

It's more like: you're building a traditional motorbike, some guy comes around and offers you an electric bike's engine, you think "oh well I didn't have the combustion engine yet, so at least I can get to demo/market faster with this and I'll replace it with a real engine when the time comes"...

and by the time you're done with the handlebar, the electric bike engine has been upgraded 4 times and is now better than any combustion engine, so why bother replacing it?

By the time you get to the market, the bike's engine has gone through multiple more updates, is fully self-driving and can fly. It is also self-replicating and now your buyers might not need you anymore...

Re: Major outages across ChatGPT and API

#588

Post by nearbuy »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #507
nearbuy wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have to be happy about it, but we can't stop this new technology any more than we could stop the invention of the steam engine or the printing press. Technology always displaces jobs; that's largely the point of inventing it. By reducing the human labour required to produce something, it allows us to produce more using fewer resources and frees up the labour to go work on something else. This is why we went…

I disagree. Not using ChatGPT can be the start of a coalition of people that do not use it. I already have two principles: (1) to not use generative AI, LLMs and other AI tooks, and (2) to give preference to people and businesses who do the same. It's simple. If I find that websites use ChatGPT to help generate their content, I stop visiting and supporting them. If I find businesses using AI, I stop supporting them.…

> If such a coalition grows large enough

It won't. People have never defeated a useful new technology that destroys jobs. People widely like using these tools. You'd need to ban their use worldwide. If the US bans AI, China and other countries will become dominant in AI. Assuming AI continues to improve, there's an extreme advantage for any country that has it.

Re: Major outages across ChatGPT and API

#589

Post by verdverm »

water-your-self wrote: post #451
verdverm wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped paying OpenAI because they went down or were "too busy" so much of the time I wanted to use it. Bard (or more so the VertexAI APIs) are always up and reliable and do not require a monthly fee, just the per call

How often was OpenAI down that you wanted to look elsewhere?

Multiple times a week my work was interrupted or workflows would break

This is not the only reason, their change from open to closed and Sam Altman's commentary were significant factors as well.

OpenAI is just the latest big tech darling, which I fully expect us to turn on like we do with other companies once they become to big to fail

Re: Major outages across ChatGPT and API

#590

Post by Alupis »

butlike wrote: post #584
Alupis wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still have to go read the references and comprehend the material to determine if the GPT answer was correct or not. I don't know the name for the effect, but it's similar to when you listen/watch the news. When the news is about a topic you know an awful lot about, it's plainly obvious how wrong they are. Yet... when you know little about the topic, you just trust what you hear even though they're as likely to be…

> You still have to go read the references and comprehend the material Like...it always has been?

How many will actually do that when presented with convincing, accurate-sounding information?

There's the problem... and it defeats the entire purpose of using a tool like GPT.

Post reply on HN