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

611–620 of 766 posts

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#611

Post by anshumankmr »

whycome wrote: post #294
xwowsersx wrote: post #13

Google's edge obvious here is the deep integration it already has with calendar, apps, and chats and what not that lets them surface context-rich updates naturally. OpenAI doesn't have that same ecosystem lock-in yet, so to really compete they'll need to get more into those integrations. I think what it comes down to ultimately is that being "just a model" company isn't going to work. Intelligence itself will go to z…

OpenAI should just straight up release an integrated calendar app. Mobile app. The frameworks are already there and the ics or caldav formats just work well. They could have an email program too and just access any other imap mail. And simple docs eventually. I think you’re right that they need to compete with google on the ecosystem front.

They do have tasks. And problem is if they do calendars/tasks, they might cannibalize their own customers who might be building stuff on their wrappers, and then the point of the API business will seem tougher to sell to other customers.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#613

Post by [deleted] »

ryandvm wrote: post #600
mapcars wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blockchain is probably the most useless technology ever invented (unless you're a criminal or an influencer who makes ungodly amounts of money off of suckers). Are you sure you are not confusing blockchain with crypto coins? Blockchain as a decentralised immutable and verifiable ledger actually has use in 0-trust scenarios.

Actual "0-trust scenarios" are incredibly elusive in the real world. It pretty much comes down to illegal or "extra-legal" transactions. Almost nobody in the real world has a practical interest in carrying out transactions with people they don't trust and people that our outside the jurisdiction of their legal framework. It turns out that most people actually like being able to press criminal charges or have the abil…

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#614

Post by giarc »

Gigachad wrote: post #311
giarc wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - I'm not sure why Google doesn't just send me a morning email to tell me what's on my calendar for the day, remind me to follow up on some emails I didn't get to yesterday or where I promised a follow up etc. They can just turn it on for everyone all at once.

Because it would just get lost in the noise of all the million other apps trying to grab your attention. Rather than sending yet another email, they should start filtering out the noise from everyone else to highlight the stuff that actually matters. Hide the notifications from uber which are just adverts and leave the one from your friend sending you a message on the lock screen.

I meant in your inbox, not notifications on the phone.

Gmail already does filter the noise through "Categories" (Social, Updates, Forums, Promotions). I've turned them off as I'm pretty good about unsubscribing from junk and don't get a ton of email. However, they could place an alert at the top of your inbox to your "daily report" or whatever. Just as they have started to put an alert on incoming deliveries (ex. Amazon orders). You can then just dismiss it, so perhaps it's not an email so much as a "message" or something.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#615

Post by giarc »

FINDarkside wrote: post #279
giarc wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - I'm not sure why Google doesn't just send me a morning email to tell me what's on my calendar for the day, remind me to follow up on some emails I didn't get to yesterday or where I promised a follow up etc. They can just turn it on for everyone all at once.

None of those require AI though.

It requires "AI" in the sense of how we all wave our hands and call everything AI nowadays. But a daily digest of the past day, upcoming day and future events/tasks would be a good "AI" feature that might actually be useful.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#616

Post by lucasban »

ryandvm wrote: post #600
mapcars wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blockchain is probably the most useless technology ever invented (unless you're a criminal or an influencer who makes ungodly amounts of money off of suckers). Are you sure you are not confusing blockchain with crypto coins? Blockchain as a decentralised immutable and verifiable ledger actually has use in 0-trust scenarios.

Actual "0-trust scenarios" are incredibly elusive in the real world. It pretty much comes down to illegal or "extra-legal" transactions. Almost nobody in the real world has a practical interest in carrying out transactions with people they don't trust and people that our outside the jurisdiction of their legal framework. It turns out that most people actually like being able to press criminal charges or have the abil…

How is blockchain technology mutually exclusive from being able to take legal action against e.g. fraud?

Sure there are implementations that can be used that way, but the core idea of a blockchain could be used to do the opposite as well, for example by making transaction information public and verifiable.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#617

Post by 9rx »

IanCal wrote: post #564
9rx wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitions do vary, but everyone agrees that it requires autonomy. That is ultimately what sets AGI apart from AI. The GPT model alone does not offer autonomy. It only acts in response to explicit input. That's not to say that you couldn't built autonomy on top of GPT, though. In fact, that appears to be exactly what Pulse is trying to accomplish. But Microsoft and OpenAI's contractual agreements state that the auto…

I really disagree on the autonomy side. In fact the Wikipedia page explicitly says that’s not required so whether you agree with that concept or not it’s not a universal point. > The concept does not, in principle, require the system to be an autonomous agent; a static model—such as a highly capable large language model—or an embodied robot could both satisfy the definition so long as human‑level breadth and proficie…

> In fact the Wikipedia page explicitly says that’s not required so whether you agree with that concept or not it’s not a universal point.

It says that one guy who came up with his own AGI classification system says it might not be required. And despite it being his own system, he still was only able to land on "might not", meaning that he doesn't even understand his own system. He can safely be ignored. Outliers are always implied, of course.

> No! The key thing was that it was general intelligence rather than things like “bird classifier” or “chess bot”.

I suppose if you don't consider the wide range of human intelligence as the marker of general intelligence then a "bird classifier" plus a "chess bot" gives you general intelligence. We had nearly a millennia ago!

But usually general intelligence expects human-like intelligence, which would necessitate autonomy — the most notable feature of human intelligence. Humans would not be able to exist without the intelligence to perform autonomously.

But, regardless, you make a good point: A "language classifier" can be no more AGI than a "bird classifier". These are narrow systems, focused on a single task. A "bird classifier" doesn't become a general intelligence when it crosses some threshold of being able to classify n number of birds just as a "language classifier" wouldn't become a general intelligence when it is able to classify n number of language features, no matter how large n becomes.

Conceivably these classifiers could be used as part of a larger system to achieve general intelligence, but on their own, impossible.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#618

Post by Jensson »

stanac wrote: post #507
komali2 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But without that level of autonomy it is hard to say it is more autonomous than an average human. You might not want it, but that is what humans are.

Every human every day has the choice to not go to work, has the choice not to follow the law, has a choice to... These AI doesn't have nearly as much autonomy as that.

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#619

Post by venusenvy47 »

jedbrooke wrote: post #174
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #27

My pulse today is just a mediocre rehash of prior conversations I’ve had on the platform. I tried to ask GPT-5 pro the other day to just pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on, and I’d carry out whatever physical world tasks it needed me to, and all it did was just come up with project plans which were rehashes of my prior projects framed as its own. I’m rapidly losing interest in all of these tools. It feels…

> I tried to ask GPT-5 pro the other day to just pick an ambitious project it wanted to work on, and I’d carry out whatever physical world tasks it needed me to, and all it did was just come up with project plans which were rehashes of my prior projects framed as its own. Mate, I think you’ve got the roles of human and AI reversed. Humans are supposed to come up with creative ideas and let machines do the tedious wor…

The posted article starts off by claiming that the AI can take the lead. I don't believe their hype, but I think that it the basis for the above comment.

"Since ChatGPT launched, that's always meant coming to ask a question .... However that's limited by what you know to ask for and always puts the burden on you for the next step."

Re: ChatGPT Pulse

#620

Post by kspacewalk2 »

lucasban wrote: post #616
ryandvm wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual "0-trust scenarios" are incredibly elusive in the real world. It pretty much comes down to illegal or "extra-legal" transactions. Almost nobody in the real world has a practical interest in carrying out transactions with people they don't trust and people that our outside the jurisdiction of their legal framework. It turns out that most people actually like being able to press criminal charges or have the abil…

How is blockchain technology mutually exclusive from being able to take legal action against e.g. fraud? Sure there are implementations that can be used that way, but the core idea of a blockchain could be used to do the opposite as well, for example by making transaction information public and verifiable.

At some point in its lifecycle, it's no longer enough to hear about what a technology "could be used" for, because the time has come to judge it on its actual real world uses.
Post reply on HN