HN user

anthlax

105 karma
Posts5
Comments72
View on HN
Update on Sharing 3 years ago

My current favorite corp speak is “we can’t wait to share it with you”. Seems like it’s in literally every product announcement. At least this one is positive

Some notes: - based on GPT3.5 - essentially, the test was “how well can GPT produce ML code” (tune hyper parameters, base off of case studies) - did not compare to the human case, only to other ML models (unless “human” is considered perfect, in which case GPT got 86%. Although I don’t think a human would perform at 100% of the benchmark)

I’ve been unable to replicate this. Could you please show me an example? I ask everyone who makes this claim and have yet to see a concrete example. I just can’t get it to do anything useful for me. I feel like I’m missing the boat!

Could you explain that “two tables” issue again? I’m trying to think of a way that DB constraints (I’m using Postgres, fwiw) couldn’t handle denormalization, but imo there’s a constraint for everything. Force a 1:1 relationship, or add a check constraint so you literally cannot denormalize.

The other day, I was configuring fluxbox WM. I decided to use chatGPT because I didn’t really feel like parsing the wall of text that was the spec.

I asked it how to add default names to the workspaces. It gave me an answer that looked so plausible I didn’t question it. 15-20 reloads later, I went over to the spec to verify chatGPTs work.

It lied through it’s teeth. Entirely made up the API. Typically we see the “ChatGPT made stuff up” though the lens of an expert - they can immediately tell that the AI is lying. I finally felt it though the lens of a beginner - I fully believed it and it ended up wasting around an hour of mine.

If a co-worker did this to me (straight up lied about an API) I’d be pretty upset - I have no problems with people saying “I don’t know” but pretending isn’t cool. I can’t be mad at openAI because it’s just a tool, but a tool I won’t be going back to to learn things.

SamA strikes me as overly disingenuous - as if most of his interactions are marketing pieces / warfare. The entire lex + sama podcast seemed this way to me.

I’m incredibly biased though and feel slighted (as a part of humanity) by openAI’s actions, so perhaps I’m looking at his actions through a hateful lens.

The trust ecosystem of the AI community - most every breakthrough was published publicly until OpenAI decided to take advantage of that.

Besides that, this comment contained a ton of statements on what “would” have happened had Google not published. Interesting but worthless way to defend openAI’s actions.

And the opposite? What if the world is full of people like who you claim that the machine is pretending to be conscious, and is only “quacking like consciousness”? Would you be okay not affording a conscious thing rights?

Bursty workloads? I.e people use my app from 9am - 11am and then nothing for the rest of the day. I’m paying $8 but only around $2 of compute is actually helpful. Setting spend limits on lambda / vercel / cloudfns means the entire $8 go to my bursty workload