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

Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

atomic14.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 307 posts

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#71

Post by O__________O »

Semaphor wrote: post #34
O__________O wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Wikipedia also “speaks with confidence” and makes no attempt to make it easy to understand exactly how confident one should be in the facts presented. At one point they had said the would, but never did to my knowledge. Google has TrustRank, but to my knowledge it’s on a source-level basis, not fact-level basis.

> At one point they had said the would, but never did to my knowledge. I think autocorrect or something mangled your sentence beyond recognition.

What specifically is unclear?

Wikipedia said they would enable users at to be able to quickly tell what the confidence was in the facts being presented and to my knowledge never did. My understanding is that even now that linked sources are not even systematically checked to confirm they even relate to the related passage of text.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#72

Post by ramraj07 »

WA wrote: post #57
kristiandupont wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost more astonishing to me to see reactions like yours. I showed it to a friend and she too was unimpressed because it gave answers in her field (finance) that were "good, but sortof basic". So we have here a chat bot that pretty much passes for a human and some people react with "meh, it's not a genius". It makes me think of Tim Urbans chart: https://imgs.search.brave.com/YR7qt28AjhAeXSr_qvSmJubqIKJW5S...

If it is sold as an AI, people are unimpressed. It’s really not a genius. If it is sold as a sophisticated general purpose chat bot (like you did), it’s incredibly impressive. Context matters.

People collectively being unimpressed has never been and will continue to never be a yardstick. It’s good enough that no self respecting teacher would give an essay question as homework. It’s good enough to answer at least most factual questions you ask google. Turing would consider this to be an AI. Whether some jaded mediocre tech guru calls it an AI or not doesn’t matter that much in the big scheme of things.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#73

Post by arcturus17 »

tacker2000 wrote: post #58

Soon we will see the guys who create these scammy fake Upwork profiles use this to generate the code for their clients and pocket the almost 100% profit margin! What a time to be alive!

The people I hire through Upwork don't deliver code raw through a chat... They deliver working solutions, of which code is one part.

If they want to build the solution with ChatGPT, then all the more power to them! I doubt they will get 100% profit margin, since they will have to parse my requirements and deliver a working system with multiple parts, which is a lot of the work nowadays.

On a tangential point, if ChatGPT and other AI-assisted methods really deliver, it will likely be more beneficial for many consultants and agencies to do fixed or value pricing rather than hourly, and most value will be concentrated around business analysis / architecture / design stuff. I personally this is a good thing; in my personal experience I've found the best margins doing that stuff rather than pure implementation.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#75

Post by ben_w »

rightbyte wrote: post #21
capableweb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear Hiring Manager, I am writing to apply for the ChatGPT prompt engineer position at your company. I am highly qualified for this role, with extensive experience using ChatGPT. I have been using ChatGPT for over two years in my current role as a natural language processing engineer. In this position, I have been responsible for developing and maintaining a variety of ChatGPT-based systems, including chatbots, langu…

This is terrible. Spam will be terrible. The internet infrastructure for interperson communication will be dead as it works today. You will never know of you write to e.g. a sales rep or a bot if the conversation is shallow. Support call centers will be decimated to bot chats. Thankfully the bot does not speak my language so I can watch the shitshow from the other side the fence.

> Support call centers will be decimated to bot chats.

Call centres were already heavily scripted even before speech recognition allowed human workers to be replaced with voice interfaces.

And that’s ignoring whatever this is called: “Welcome to your $phone_company account. Press one to hear your messages, press two to hear your credit or top up, press three for…”

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#76

Post by Proven »

thomasfl wrote: post #65

ChatGPT will probably save the planet. Within a year I predict large number of individuals will have typed sentences like "how do I get laid" or "how do I become famous" in ChatGPT. Since the advice will tell people how to achieve these goals in an efficient way, people will stop buying a lot of crap like expensive handbags, watches or sportscars. It will be the end of conspicious consumption.

No post body was provided.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#77

Post by FerociousTimes »

altcognito wrote: post #46
kristiandupont wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost more astonishing to me to see reactions like yours. I showed it to a friend and she too was unimpressed because it gave answers in her field (finance) that were "good, but sortof basic". So we have here a chat bot that pretty much passes for a human and some people react with "meh, it's not a genius". It makes me think of Tim Urbans chart: https://imgs.search.brave.com/YR7qt28AjhAeXSr_qvSmJubqIKJW5S...

Well as someone who kinda bought into the hype that we would have self driving cars 3 years ago, I’d say beware of underestimating the importance of the size of the problem. However, I agree with you in general: there’s a certain amount of surprise in laughing off the creation an AI agent that could pass as a reasonably intelligent person if it just weren’t straight up wrong about random things.

These are not random things.

When the creators of this tool present it as the frontier of machine intelligence, and when its persona revolves around being intelligent, authoritative, and knowledgeable, and yet it gets some basic, not random, stuff awfully wrong, you can't really discount the skeptic sentiments expressed in the comments here like this.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#78

Post by ramraj07 »

sgt wrote: post #56
codingdave wrote: post #27

I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I'm simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened. ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn't know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a s…

I've been asking it some popular science / physics related questions, like: "If the moon was compressed into the size of a soccer ball, would it be dangerous to be close to it ?" Its answer: "If the moon were compressed into the size of a soccer ball, it would be extremely dangerous to be close to it. The moon is made up of rock and other materials, and if it were compressed into a much smaller size, the resulting de…

That’s technically very correct? It didn’t assume it’ll become a black hole or even a neutron star, but still made predictions quite accurately.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#79

Post by sandgiant »

kristiandupont wrote: post #44
codingdave wrote: post #27

I could have said this on any ChatGPT post the last few days, but I'm simply not seeing the accuracy of it in such a way that anything is threatened. ChatGPT is a plausible idiot. It gets just enough right, saying just enough words, to sound plausible and authoritative to anyone who doesn't know the subject matter well. But it also gets enough wrong that you cannot rely on its accuracy, and if it is talking about a s…

It's almost more astonishing to me to see reactions like yours. I showed it to a friend and she too was unimpressed because it gave answers in her field (finance) that were "good, but sortof basic". So we have here a chat bot that pretty much passes for a human and some people react with "meh, it's not a genius". It makes me think of Tim Urbans chart: https://imgs.search.brave.com/YR7qt28AjhAeXSr_qvSmJubqIKJW5S...

It's even more astonishing (depressing?) to me how little credit people give humans these days. If the consensus is that ChatGPT pretty much passes for a human, my definition of a human is very different from that of the consensus. At the very least I'd like my humans to exhibit even minimal capacity for emotional expression as well as consistency and honesty.

I can't even believe I'm even spelling this out. What is the point of associating anything even remotely human with a chatbot like ChatGPT? I really don't get it. What benefit do we get from this? If anything is confuses us in ways that makes it more difficult to understand and argue about AI specifically, and technology generally.

ChatGPT is being grossly misinterpreted, and it's a shame, really, because it's such a cool piece of software.

Re: Using ChatGPT as a Co-Founder

#80

Post by O__________O »

FerociousTimes wrote: post #35
O__________O wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Wikipedia also “speaks with confidence” and makes no attempt to make it easy to understand exactly how confident one should be in the facts presented. At one point they had said the would, but never did to my knowledge. Google has TrustRank, but to my knowledge it’s on a source-level basis, not fact-level basis.

The bot got it unequivocally wrong here. When it said that the vast majority of the population of what's now modern-day France spoke modern French as their native language, that's categorically false and shouldn't be treated with leniency or open to interpretations.

My point is cherry picking flaws won’t help improve anything for ChatGPT, Wikipedia, etc — but systematic approaches to discovering and modeling information space and related fact, queries, etc would. Wikipedia not free of issues and to my knowledge does not allow end user to see Wikipedia’s confidence in a given fact, if they have one at all.
Post reply on HN