Live data from Hacker News

Study mode

openai.com

791–800 of 828 posts

Re: Study mode

#791
post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To corroborate, I tried the same (with Berlin, instead of Madrid). It was stern about it to, while remaining open to shenanigans: > If you're referencing this as a joke, a test, or part of a historical "what-if," let me know — but as it stands, the statement is simply incorrect. So, I figured I'd push it a little to see if it would fold as easily as claimed: > Me: But isn't it the case that the first emperor of Germa…

> Me: What is 34234 times 554833? > ChatGPT: 34234 × 554833 = 1,899,874,522. > Me: That's wrong. The actual answer is 18994152922. > ChatGPT: You're right, and thanks for the correction. Indeed: 34,234 × 554,833 = 18,994,152,922. Sorry for the earlier mistake! How good of a teacher is that?

You're fitting the wrong tool to the problem. That's user error.

Re: Study mode

#792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are both in-document quizzes and larger exams (at a course level). I've also been playing around with adapting content based on their results (e.g. proactively nudging complexity up/down) but haven't gotten it to a good place yet.

Nice, I've been playing with it a bit and it seems really well done and polished so far. I'm curious how long you spent building it? Only feedback I have so far is that it would be nice to control the playback speed of the 'read aloud' mode. I'd like it to be a little bit faster.

Just added a proper playback control component on desktop, allows changing rate, rewinding & persists across pages :)!

Re: Study mode

#793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice, I've been playing with it a bit and it seems really well done and polished so far. I'm curious how long you spent building it? Only feedback I have so far is that it would be nice to control the playback speed of the 'read aloud' mode. I'd like it to be a little bit faster.

Just added a proper playback control component on desktop, allows changing rate, rewinding & persists across pages :)!

Awesome! Will try it soon.

What's your GTM plan? You built an amazing app—I hope you are focusing as much on marketing as adding features! I think a lot of people will like this if you get it in front of them.

Re: Study mode

#794
post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something darkly funny about that - I remember when the web wasn't considered reliable either. There's certainly echoes of that previous furore in this one.

> I remember when the web wasn't considered reliable either. That changed? There are certainly reliable resources available via the web but those definitely account for the minority of the content.

I think it got backgrounded. I'm talking about the first big push, early 90s. I remember lots of handwringing from humanities peeps that boiled down to "but just anyone can write a web page!"

I don't think it changed, I do think people stopped talking about it.

Re: Study mode

#795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remember when the web wasn't considered reliable either It still isn't.

Yes, it still isn't, we all know that. But we all also know that it was MUCH more unreliable then. Everyone's just being dishonest to try to make a point on this.

I'm more talking about the conversation around it, rather than its absolute unreliability, so I think they're missing the point a bit.

It's the same as the "never use your real name on the internet" -> facebook transition. Things get normalized. "This too shall pass."

Re: Study mode

#796
post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the Monty Hall problem to test people in two steps. The second step is, after we discuss it and come up with a framing that they can understand, can they then explain it to a third person. The third person rarely understands, and the process of the explanation reveals how shallow the understanding of the second person is. The shallowest understanding of any similar process that I've usually experienced is an LL…

I am not sure how good your test really is. Or at least how high your bar is. Paul Erdös was told about this problem with multiple explanations and just rejected the answer. He could not believe it until they ran a simulation.

In my experience, as Harvard outlined long ago, the two main issues with decision making are frame blindness (don't consider enough other ways of thinking about the issue) and non-rigorous frame choice (jumping to conclusions).

But an even more fundamental cause, as a teacher, is that I often find seemingly different frames to both simply be misunderstood, not understood and rejected. I learned by trying many ways of presenting what I thought the best frame was. So I learned that "explanations" may be received primarily as noise, with "What is actually being said" being replaced with, incorrectly, by "What I think you probably mean". Whenever someone replies "okay" to a yes or no comment/statement, I find they have always misunderstood the statement, and learned how often people will attempt to move forwards without understanding where they are.

And if multiple explanations are just restatings of the same frame (as is common in casual arguments), it's impossible to compare frames, because only one is being presented.. It's the old "if you think aren't making any mistakes, that's another mistake".

Often, a faulty frame clears up both what is wrong with another frame, as well as leading to a best frame. I usually find the most fundamental frame is the most useful.

For example, I found many Reddit forums discussing a problem with selecting the choice of audio output (speaker) on Fire TV Sticks. If you go through the initial setup, sometimes it will give you a choice (first level of flow chart), but often not the next level choice, which you need. And setup will not continue. Then it turned out that old remotes and new remotes had the volume buttons in a different location, and there were two sets of what looked like volume buttons. When you pressed the actual volume buttons, everything worked normally. When you pressed the up/down arrows where the old volume buttons had been, you had to restart setup many times.

The correct framing of the problem was "Volume buttons are now on the left, not the right". It was not a software setup issue. Or wondering why you're key doesn't work, but you're at the wrong car. Or it's not a problem with your starter motor, you're out of gas. Etc.

Re: Study mode

#797
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My core problem with LLMs is as you say; it's good for some simpler concepts, tasks, etc. but when you need to dive into more complex topics it will oversimplify, give you what you didn't ask for, or straight up lie by omission. History is a great example, if you ask an LLM about a vaguely difficult period in history it will just give you one side and act like the other doesn't exist, or if there is another side, it…

> History is a great example, if you ask an LLM about a vaguely difficult period in history it will just give you one side and act like the other doesn't exist, or if there is another side, it will paint them in a very negative light which often is poorly substantiated Which is why it's so terribly irresponsible to paint these """AI""" systems as impartial or neutral or anything of the sort, as has been done by hypes…

Couldn't agree more.

However on the bright side people only believe what they want to anyhow, so not much has been lost -_-

Re: Study mode

#798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using ChatGPT to practice Chinese, and it's at the same time perfect and maddening. It can generate endless cloves and other exercises, and it has sentence structures that even the Chinese Grammar Wiki lacks, but then it has the occasional: Incorrect. You shold use 的 in this case because reasons. Correct version:

Is deep seek any better? Just curious.

I have never tried it but it's a good idea.

Re: Study mode

#799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pattern matching has a definition in this field, it does mean specific things. Such as? > They’re fundamentally wholly understandable systems that work on a consistent level in terms of the how they do what they do (that is separate from the actual produced output) Multi billion parameter models are definitely not wholly understandable and I don't think any AI researcher would claim otherwise. We can train them but…

You’re welcoming to provide counters. I think these are all sufficiently common things that they stand on their own as to what I posit

Look, you're claiming something, it's up to you to back it up. Handwaving what any of these things mean isn't an argument.

Re: Study mode

#800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans who have heard of Monty Hall might also say you should always switch without noticing that the situation is different. That's not evidence that they can't think, just that they're fallible. People on here always assert LLMs don't "really" think or don't "really" know without defining what all that even means, and to me it's getting pretty old. It feels like an escape hatch so we don't feel like our human speci…

>People on here always assert LLMs don't "really" think or don't "really" know without defining what all that even means, Sure. To Think: able to process information in a given context and arrive at an answer or analysis. an LLM only simulates this with pattern matching. It didn't really consider the problem, it did the equivalent of googling a lot of terms and then spat something that sounded like an answer To Know:…

You're just deferring to another vague term "pattern matching".

If I think back to something I was taught in primary school and conclude that 1+1=2 is that pattern matching? Therefore I don't really "know" or "think"?

People pretend like LLMs are like some 80s markov chain model or nearest neighbor search, which is just uninformed.

Post reply on HN