Live data from Hacker News

Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

holovaty.com

91–100 of 451 posts

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#91
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you think my writing is AI-generated you need to recalibrate your AI writing detection skills, they're way off.

Hijacking, but

Hey hey you're the TIL guy! I was designing my blog and I looked at what was suggested as the best blogs, yours was on it.

The TIL is such a great idea, takes the pressure off of "is it really good enough to post as a blog"

Glad to see you here :D

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. IMO this has always been the killer use case for AI—from Google Maps to Grammarly. I discovered Grammarly at the very last phase of writing my book. I accepted maybe 1/3 of its suggestions, which is pretty damn good considering my book had already been edited by me dozens of times AND professionally copy-edited. But if I'd have accepted all of Gram…

What's wrong with passive?

Sometimes it's used without thinking, and often the writing is made shorter and clearer when the passive voice is removed. But not always; rewriting my previous sentence to name the agents in each case, as the active voice requires in English, would not improve it. (You could remove "made", though.)

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#94
The music notation tool space is balkanized in a variety of ways. One of the key splits is between standard music notation and tablature, which is used for guitar and a few other instruments. People are generally on one side or another, and the notation is not even fully compatible - tablature covers information that standard notation doesn't, and vice versa. This covers fingering, articulations, "step on fuzz pedal now," that sort of thing.

The users are different, the music that is notated is different, and for the most part if you are on one side, you don't feel the need to cross over. Multiple efforts have been made (MusicXML, etc.) to unify these two worlds into a superset of information. But the camps are still different.

So what ChatGPT did is actually very interesting. It hallucinated a world in which tab readers would want to use Soundslice. But, largely, my guess is they probably don't....today. In a future world, they might? Especially if Soundslice then enables additional features that make tab readers get more out of the result.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#95
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, that's awesome! Are you going to change the interface? What was the bug?

It used nonsensical parameters to the API in way that I didn't realize was possible (though obvious in hindsight). The AI got confused; it didn't think the parameters were nonsensical. It also didn't quite use them in the way that triggered the error. However it was close enough for me to realize that "hey, I never though of that possibility". I needed to fix the function to return a proper error response for the non…

Yeah, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about!

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#96

> Should we really be developing features in response to misinformation? Creating the feature means it's no longer misinformation. The bigger issue isn't that ChatGPT produces misinformation - it's that it takes less effort to update reality to match ChatGPT than it takes to update ChatGPT to match reality. Expect to see even more of this as we match toward accepting ChatGPT's reality over other sources.

How many times did a salesman sell features that didn't exist yet?

If a feature has enough customers to pay for itself, develop it.

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes it comes up with a better approach than I had thought of. IMO this has always been the killer use case for AI—from Google Maps to Grammarly. I discovered Grammarly at the very last phase of writing my book. I accepted maybe 1/3 of its suggestions, which is pretty damn good considering my book had already been edited by me dozens of times AND professionally copy-edited. But if I'd have accepted all of Gram…

What's wrong with passive?

Passive voice often adds length, impedes flow, and subtracts the useful info of who is doing something.

Examples:

* Active - concise, complete info: The manager approved the proposal.

* Passive - wordy, awkward: The proposal was approved by the manager.

* Passive - missing info: The proposal was approved. [by who?]

Most experienced writers will use active unless they have a specific reason not to, e.g., to emphasize another element of the sentence, as the third bullet's sentence emphasizes approval.

-

edited for clarity, detail

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#98
People forget that while technology grows, society also grows to support that.

I already strongly suspect that LLMs are just going to magnify the dominance of python as LLMs can remove the most friction from its use. Then will come the second order effects where libraries are explicitly written to be LLM friendly, further removing friction.

LLMs write code best in python -> python gets used more -> python gets optimized for LLMs -> LLMs write code best in python

Re: Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

#100
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with passive?

Passive voice often adds length, impedes flow, and subtracts the useful info of who is doing something. Examples: * Active - concise, complete info: The manager approved the proposal. * Passive - wordy, awkward: The proposal was approved by the manager. * Passive - missing info: The proposal was approved. [by who?] Most experienced writers will use active unless they have a specific reason not to, e.g., to emphasize…

Sometimes the missing info is obvious, irrelevant, or intentionally not disclosed, so "The proposal was approved" can be better. Informally we often say, "They approved the proposal," in such cases, or "You approve the proposal" when we're talking about a future or otherwise temporally indefinite possibility, but that's not acceptable in formal registers.

Unfortunately, the resulting correlation between the passive voice and formality does sometimes lead poor writers to use the passive in order to seem more formal, even when it's not the best choice.

Post reply on HN