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

ChatGPT Plugins

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#661

Post by spenczar5 »

chatmasta wrote: post #418
jehb wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The faster we build the future, the better. Why? Getting to "the future" isn't a goal in and of itself. It's just a different state with a different set of problems, some of which we've proven that we're not prepared to anticipate or respond to before they cause serious harm.

When in human history have we ever intentionally not furthered technological progress? It's simply an unrealistic proposition, especially when the costs of doing it are so low that anyone with sufficient GPU power and knowledge of the latest research can get pretty close to the cutting edge. So the best we can hope for is that someone ethical is the first to advance that technological progress. I hope you wouldn't ad…

The Roman empire did that for hundreds of years! They had an economic standard that wasn't surpassed until ~1650s Europe, so why didn't they have an industrial revolution? It was because elites were very against technological developments that reduced labor costs or ruined professions, because they thought they would be destabilizing to their power.

There's a story told by Pliny in the 1st century. An inventor came up with shatter-proof glass, he was very proud, and the emperor called him up to see it. They hit it with a hammer and it didn't break! The inventor expected huge rewards - and then the emperor had him beheaded because it would disrupt the Roman glass industry and possibly devalue metals. This story is probably apocryphal but it shows Roman values very well - this story was about what a wise emperor Tiberius was! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_glass

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#662

Post by int_19h »

thanzex wrote: post #621
wahnfrieden wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

openai wants to gatekeep access and use of their AI. so why would they ever release a local LLM? i think that would come from their enemies

I mean, GPT3 requires some 800GB of memory to run, do we all have gazillion dollars supercomputers at home? I think, unless there's some real breaktrough in the field or in the hw acceleration, this kind of model is going to stay locked behind a pricy API for quite some time.

GPT-3.5 requires less. And neither model is considered size-optimal. It's just that with Microsoft's money, it's easier for OpenAI to move fast by throwing said money at more hardware rather than trying to optimize for size.

And yeah, I wouldn't expect them to share any model that is competitive with their current offering. But it can leak, and the copyright situation around that is very unclear at the moment.

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#663

Post by bsaul »

mherrmann wrote: post #229

The Wolfram plugin also has extremely impressive examples [1]. If I were OpenAI, I would use the usage data to further train the model. They can probably use ChatGPT itself to determine when an answer it produced pleased the user. Then they can use that to train the next model. The internet is growing a brain. 1: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-its...

In a way this is a bit less impressive than having chatgpt being able to generate those answers on its own only using learned information. This kinds of admits defeat regarding its ability to solve mathematical problems correctly or answer factual information.

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#664

Post by pms »

93po wrote: post #644
VoodooJuJu wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely an emotionally impulsive decision. I implore you to reconsider. If you've always wondered about and scoffed at how people fall for things like Nigerian Prince scams and cryptocurrency HELOC bets, this is it, what you're experiencing right now, this intense FOMO, it's the same thing that fools cool wine aunts into giving their savings to Nigerian princes. Tread lightly. Stay frosty.

I have three weeks until I plan to give notice, so I'll take your perspective to heart and give it time to reconsider, of course. I appreciate the feedback. From my perspective this isn't about anyone trying to convince me of anything and I'm falling for it. My beliefs on the future of software are based on a series of logical steps that lead me to believe most software development, and frankly any software with user…

You definitely sound all emotional. Take it easy.

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#665

Post by IIAOPSW »

hooande wrote: post #394
mk_stjames wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally 6 months ago you couldn't get ChatGPT to call up details from a webpage or send any dat to a 3rd party API connected to the web in any way. Today you can. I don't think it is a stretch to think that in another 6 months there could be financial institutions giving API access to other institutions through ChatGPT, and all it takes it a stupid access control hole or bug and my above sentence could ring true. L…

This has nothing to do with ChatGPT. An api end point will be just as vulnerable if it's called from any application. There's nothing special about an LLM interface that will make this more or less likely. It sounds like you're weaving science fiction ideas about AGI into your comment. There's no safety issue here unless you think that ChatGPT will use api access to pursue its own goals and intentions.

I'm sure that with the right prompting, you can get it to very convincingly participate as a party in a contract negotiation or business haggling of some sort. It would be indistinguishable from an agent with its own goals and intentions. The thing about "it has no goals and intents" is that it is contradictory with its purpose of successfully passing off as us: beings with goals and intents. If you fake it well enough, do you actually have it?

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#666

Post by bulbosaur123 »

Riverheart wrote: post #631
bulbosaur123 wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False equivalence. Sea level raise is unequivocally harmful. While everyone getting Einstein in a pocket is damn awesome and incredibly useful. How can this be bad?

Because there’s a high likelihood that that’s not at all how this technology is going to be spread amongst the population, or all countries and this technology is going to be way more than Einstein in a pocket. How do you even structure society around that? What about all the malicious people in the world. Now they have Einsteins. Great, nothing can go wrong there.

The risk is there. But it's worth the risk. Humans are curious creatures, you can't just shut something like this in a box. Even if it is dangerous, even if it has potential to destroy humanity. It's our nature to explore, it's our nature to advance at all costs. Bring it on!

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#667

Post by summarity »

sunsunsunsun wrote: post #565
softwaredoug wrote: post #251

It's ironic that a few months ago Amazon laid off parts of the Alexa team and 'conversational' was considered failed. Then ChatGPT, etc happened. What Alexa wanted to build with Alexa skills, ChatGPT does much more effortlessly. It's also an interesting case study. Alexa foundationally never changed. Whereas OpenAI is a deeply invested, basically skunkworks, project with backers that were willing to sink significant…

I have never used Alexa, hey google or whatever flavour you choose for more then "set a timer for x minutes" and other very basic tasks. It's amazing how terrible the voice assistant products are compared to chatgpt.

Experimenting with and/or reading about ChatGPT and then interacting with Siri feels almost offensive now. All of the assistants still suck - get on it AmaGooPple!

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#669

Post by megablast »

koheripbal wrote: post #477
esclerofilo wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highway inevitability is a fallacy. They could've built a railway.

A railway would have created a gov't/corporate monopoly on human transport. Highways democratized the freedom of transportation.

> Highways democratized the freedom of transportation.

What a ridiculous idea.

Highways restrict movement to those with a license, a car, and do not care about pollution or anyone around them.

Post reply on HN