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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#821

Post by dredmorbius »

mk_stjames wrote: post #277

I have some odd feelings about this. It took less than a year to go from "of course it isn't hooked up to the internet in any way, silly!" to "ok.... so we hooked up up to the internet..." First is your API calls, then your chatgpt-jailbreak-turns-into-a-bank-DDOS-attack, then your "today it somehow executed several hundred thousand threads of a python script that made perfectly timed trades at 8:31AM on the NYSE whi…

I found the comments of some usually sensible voices that ChatGPT wasn't a threat because it wasn't connected to anything.

As if the plumbing of connecting up pipes and hoses between processes online or within computers isn't the easiest part of this whole process.

(I'm trying to remember who I saw saying this or where, though I'm pretty sure it was in an earlier HN thread within the past month or so. Of which there are ... frighteningly many.)

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#822

Post by pixl97 »

jmull wrote: post #553
93po wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not an emotional decision. I strongly believe we're going to see a massive shift for rational reasons :) OpenAI fixes this issue by not giving you two pages of the history of this recipe and the grandmother that originated it and what the author's thoughts are about the weather. It's just the recipe. No ads. No referral links. No slideshows. You don't have to click through three useless websites to find on…

Think about why those things exist, though. Not that the way the internet operates has to continue -- in fact I'm pretty sure it can't -- but a lot of stuff exists only because someone figured out a way to pay for it to exist. If you imaging removing those ways then you're also imaging getting rid of a lot of that stuff unless some new ways to pay for it all are found. Hopefully less obnoxious ways, but they could ea…

There is a two part problem here. A lot of good stuff only exists because of ads. We want that to remain somehow.

But the converse is a huge and ever-growing ocean of bullshit exists to siphon the ad dollars off while doing nothing to actually earn it.

Something has to break, and I guess we'll see what really soon.

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#823

Post by fillipvt »

endisneigh wrote: post #535
scarface74 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not “trivial” because of the cost per query. As far as Google, it doesn’t even have access to the most valuable phone users without paying Apple $18B+ a year.

Something can be both expensive and trivial. If the market is huge they will bear the cost. The tech is well understood even now. The parameter size will likely be an order of magnitude less for gpt4 level results in a few years

Not sure about "the tech is well understood" given the LLM itself is a black box in regards to how it works internally, even Microsoft researches admit it (Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4).

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#824

Post by judge2020 »

nwienert wrote: post #442
chatmasta wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We have a ton of protection laws around all sorts of dangerous technology, this is a super naive take. You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear materials, aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are all highly regulated and illegal pieces of technology for the better . In general the liberal position of progress = good is wrong in many cases, and I'll be thankful to see AI get neutered. If anything treat it…

> You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear materials, aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are all highly regulated and illegal pieces of technology for the better.

Only because we know the risks and issues with them.

OP is talking about furthering technology, which is quite literally "discovering new things"; regulations on furthering technology (outside of literal nuclear weapons) would have to be along the lines of "you must submit your idea for approval to the US government before using it in a non-academic context if could be interpreted as industry-changing or inventing", which means anyone with ideas will just move to a country that doesn't hinder its own technological progress.

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#825

Post by pixl97 »

93po wrote: post #472
sebzim4500 wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no way that Google would go for that.

Completely agreed. Google is insanely rigid from what I've heard recently.

Google is busy riding the Kodak roller coaster off a cliff. Maybe they'll save themselves, but they're not doing a good job so far.

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#826

Post by int_19h »

Thorentis wrote: post #755
int_19h wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is already blocked from ChatGPT and Bing; I don't know about China. But it's all security theater. Plenty of people use it with VPNs, and I know several who found it useful / interesting enough to bother paying for it (which involves foreign credit cards etc so it's kind of a hassle). I'm sure so does the Russian govt. In any case, I don't see how you could realistically block any of that without effectively w…

Not exportable often means just not available on the Internet at all. Due to a range of factors, such as the dilution of human content online, the inability to prevent bad actors from using it etc I would rather this tech never saw the light of day and was limited to government and research institutions.

It never works like that with tech. Especially not this kind of tech, where all the building blocks have been around for some time and are well-understood - just not the result of combining them at this scale.

In any case, if it's really that powerful, limiting it to one government sounds like a recipe for the worst kind of a one world state to me.

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#827

Post by yla92 »

plutonorm wrote: post #345
raydev wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd never build anything dependent on these plugins You're thinking too long term. Based on my Twitter feed filled with AI gold rush tweets, the goal is to build something/anything while hype is at its peak, and you can secure a a few hundred k or million in profits before the ground shifts underneath you. The playbook is obvious now: just build the quickest path to someone giving you money, maybe it's not useful a…

I'd not heard this on my tpot. But I absolutely agree, the ground is moving so fast and the power is so centralised that the only thing to do is spin up quickly make money, rinse and repeat. The seas will calm in a few years and then you can, maybe, make a longer term proposition.

I am curious to find out more about those "prompt packages". Where can I see the list of them?

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#828

Post by xyzelement »

Nullabillity wrote: post #815
fryry wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a weird focus comparing it with how the internet developed in a very wild west way. Imagine if internet tech got delayed until they could figure out how to not have it used for porn. Saftey from what exactly? The AI being mean to you? Just close the tab. Saftey to build a business on top? It's a self described research preview, perhaps too early to be thinking about that. Yet new releases are delayed for months…

You can't control whether your insurance company decides to use it as a filter for whether to approve you, or what premiums to charge you.

Can you control how your insurance makes these decisions today?

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#829

Post by rajin444 »

skybrian wrote: post #590
WonderBuilder wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your concerns. There are few other pretty shocking developments, too. If you check out this paper: "Sparks of AGI: Early experiments with GPT-4" at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf , (an incredible, incredible document) and check out Section 10.1, you'd also observe that some researchers are interested in giving motivation and agency to these language models as well. "For example, whether intelligenc…

When reading a paper, it's useful to ask, "okay, what did they actually do?" In this case, they tried out an early version of GPT-4 on a bunch of tasks, and on some of them it succeeded pretty well, and in other cases it partially succeeded. But no particular task is explored in enough depth to test its limits are or get a hint at how it does it. So I don't think it's a great paper. It's more like a great demo in the…

It reads a bit like promotional material. A bit of a letdown to find it was done by MSFT researchers.

Re: ChatGPT Plugins

#830

Post by chatmasta »

jacquesm wrote: post #559

The level of irresponsibility at play here is off the scale. Those running ChatGPT would do well to consider the future repercussions of their actions not in terms of technology but in terms of applicable law.

What law could they possibly be violating by adding a plug-in system to their software product? This sounds like an outrageous dramatization of reality.
Post reply on HN