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

We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

danmcquillan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 425 posts

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#81

Post by sheepscreek »

On a slight tangent from the core topic..

> we are all 'stochastic parrots' like large language models, statistical generators of learned patterns that express nothing deeper, is a form of nihilism to mean: “life is meaningless. (period)”.

When in fact, it really means: “life is meaningless… (you fill the dots for yourself)”.

Humans created the concepts of law and order, and the rules of society. Everything is man made.

More on the topic: how can we dismiss the theory of ChatGPTs intelligence when we barely understand what constitutes our intelligence at the biological level. It’s a compelling hypothesis. A neural model is the closest thing we’ve got to anything that resembles our biological model.

If indeed 1 neuron = 1 parameter, ChatGPT (175 billion parameters) could be a comparable intellectual model to a human being (86 billion neurons).

Lastly, I think some politicians are doing more damage to our civilization by dividing people. History tells us the damage and trauma from this can carry on for many many generations to come. Maybe, just maybe, ChatGPT could bring some sense into people to move past hatred and accept each others differences.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#82

Post by emodendroket »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #69

I found the article really difficult to read, so I summarised it with ChatGPT Large language models like the GPT family are statistical models that learn the structure of language by predicting missing words in sentences. These models are seen as "bullshit generators" as they have no idea what they are talking about and are designed to produce baseless assertions with confidence. The addition of reinforcement learnin…

I’m not sure why we need comments from people proud that they couldn’t be troubled to read the article that is supposedly being discussed, but it seems like a popular genre of reply whenever something tech-critical is posted.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#83

Post by rootusrootus »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #44

It has lots of value. But it's not the AI it pretends to be. Mostly because we and it can't always tell what's fact or fiction and it has 0 cognition. It's up to us to figure out where it can add value. It's way too early to announce its death. It's a super charged Cliff Clavin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Clavin

> it has 0 cognition

This seems to be the number one problem with lay understanding of ML masquerading as AGI. People immediately jump to the conclusion that the computer can think. Not yet, not even close.

Edit: Switching AI to AGI to avoid any confusion.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#85

Post by factsaresacred »

This article and many others like to point out that ChatGPT is far from intelligent and is just spitting out nonsense.

That argument fails to consider that much of the drudgery of modern employment consists of large swaths of nonsense.

ChatGPT is auto-complete for bullsh*t jobs. A fancy boilerplate generator that has seen it all before and mirrors the exact sequence of word combinations we've trained it to believe is valuable.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#86

Post by dcow »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #69

I found the article really difficult to read, so I summarised it with ChatGPT Large language models like the GPT family are statistical models that learn the structure of language by predicting missing words in sentences. These models are seen as "bullshit generators" as they have no idea what they are talking about and are designed to produce baseless assertions with confidence. The addition of reinforcement learnin…

You won my internet for the day.

Thanks LAC-Tech!

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#87

Post by jaqalopes »

totetsu wrote: post #51

Paying it forward to mention this quote is actually from a speech praising Cesar. Watch this great clip from 1970 film https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0bi1PvXCbr8

And that film is an adaptation of the play by Shakespeare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_(play)?wprov=sft...

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#88

Post by jacobsenscott »

qup wrote: post #77
jacobsenscott wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no cat and no bag - just statistical sleight of hand. The people playing the trick know this, and are just collecting investor dollars while they can (and astroturfing every HN article that explains what it is). Relying on the output of chatgpt is no different than doing a rain dance and expecting it to rain.

I'd say it's more like relying on a minimum wage employee. It gets right (what I'm asking it to do) most of the time, but not always, and you gotta check up on it. I don't understand why people act like it has to be 100% reliable to be useful.

Because if you need to check up on it, just do what you would do to check up on it in the first place. Coding is a very niche area where often you can tell if it is giving good answers. I think that's why HN people think it is so dope. In almost any other domain finding information from reliable sources is key, and chatgpt can't help with that at all.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#89

Post by chermanowicz »

Here's the thing... so many jobs are bullshit. So many things people are paid to write, presentations made, etc. are bullshit. I'm not judging the bullshit per se. There's good bullshit and bad, necessary bullshit and not. But yeah, when you accept this reality, AI is sort of perfect for the bullshit that exists in our lives.

Re: We come to bury ChatGPT, not to praise it

#90

Post by dicknuckle »

senectus1 wrote: post #54

The thing about ChatGPT is its a bit of a mirror. Its really really important that you ask it the right questions or it does tend to feed you some pretty average stuff. and often its not just the right question, but the right question asked the right way .

I'm starting to think the people who write these articles are terrible at harnessing search engines, so also terrible at getting good answers from an AI.

I've had pretty decent luck, it's really good at providing a bit of context to glue two things together with the missing pieces I couldn't figure out, most recent with JSON and JMESpath filters.

Post reply on HN