6 ms·

> Whatever ChatGPT (or similar) can generate, humans need to do better. If we reach the point where the humans simply can't do better, well, then it won't matte

> Whatever ChatGPT (or similar) can generate, humans need to do better. If we reach the point where the humans simply can't do better, well, then it won't matter. But that's a ways off. I love this response way more than I should.

ChrisRR 4y ago
I think that puts too much faith in the average person
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  But it’s exactly the right expectation for a Hacker News comment. Already HN excels because comments avoid auto-outrage and meme-commentary.
  - yccs27 4y ago
    How high the comment quality here usually is becomes really noticeable when it's lacking under a post. The most common offenders are political posts with outrage potential, especially while knee-jerk responses are flooding in and before measured comments have had time to rise to the top. Recent example was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33931384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33931384 about cash limits - Sooo many comments are just "Tyranny!", "EU bad!" and overall unmitigated cynicism.
    - t0bia_s 4y ago
      Their posts has same attitude like yours against those posts.
- throwaway675309 4y ago
  Not to obnoxiously gatekeep too much, but I'd like to think that the target demograph of hacker news is not the average pleb.
discreteevent 4y ago
It's the only bit of the response that I don't agree with. I don't come to HN solely for utilitarian purposes. If I think I'm frequently communicating with a machine on HN then then I'll stop going to HN. It really will kill HN for me. If I want to communicate with a machine for utilitarian purposes then I'll go directly to the machine and I will know that I'm communicating with a machine (a machine that cannot bring me any new experience from the real world that was not mediated in text. A machine that can only select that text on a statistical basis. A machine that was in part trained on my own words from the past!).
- dang 4y ago
  Yes, I agree - it was a throwaway line that I didn't think through. Maybe I'll add an edit. Thanks!
  - bombcar 4y ago
    I thought it was Brillant personally - that if what we’re posting is pretty indistinguishable from a bot then it’s not really worth posting. Heck the “don’t post the obvious boring response” rule is basically that.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - clay-dreidels 4y ago
    I apologize
    - dang 4y ago
      If you mean about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950722, that's fine, but please email hn@ycombinator.com so we can sort it for you.
- krageon 4y ago
  > If I think I'm [...] If the problem is your faith, it is you that has to change and not the world. It's much easier that way around too :)
asne11 4y ago
Why is that? It's not about love or should. Rather, we __must__ continually do better to maintain superiority. Could you imagine what would unfold if humans give that up to a logical system? At best, we offload most things to the bot, become dependent, reduce unused cognitive (and physical?) abilities. At worst, a more capable thing determines (a group of) humans are not logical. Then it would move to solve this problem as trained. Either way, i really like the scenario where we instead harness the power of AI for solving existential problems for which we've been ill equipped (will Yellowstone erupt this year?, how could the world more effectively share resources) and getting smarter in the process. Can we do that? I have faith :-)
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The problem is that (1) human hardware is fixed and (2) computer hardware is variable and getting better all the time and (3) computer software is variable and getting better all the time. The question then is if and when they cross over and the recent developments in this domain have me seriously worried that such cross over is inevitable. Human/AI hybrid may well be slowed down by the human bit...
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    We could work on (1) right? Or as our biological component ceases to be useful to our hybrid self, we can discard it, like a baby tooth. We thought chess or go defined humanity, turns out it is driving.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      No thanks, for me. I'll be happy to be just biological and interact with computers through keyboards and screens.
      - wizeman 4y ago
        In the future, it might be AI who designs better "hardware"/wetware for humans. If you don't change your mind (no pun intended) but most of humanity does, it sounds like you'll just be left behind, like very old people who don't even know how to use a fixed-line telephone, never mind a smartphone, computer or the internet. Except, perhaps, in a much more profound/extreme manner.
tootie 4y ago
My gut feeling is that we're still nowhere near that point. GPT is based on it's incredibly large and diverse model based on a huge corpus of human writing. Anything it creates will always be derived from what humans have already done. It can't easily react to new information nor can it make inferences beyond what it's told. I could be wrong but as impressive as the tech is, it will never be able to make deductions or inferences.
throw_me_5555 4y ago
It is same idea behind https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/

ChrisRR 4y ago

I think that puts too much faith in the average person

dr_dshiv 4y ago
But it’s exactly the right expectation for a Hacker News comment. Already HN excels because comments avoid auto-outrage and meme-commentary.
- yccs27 4y ago
  How high the comment quality here usually is becomes really noticeable when it's lacking under a post. The most common offenders are political posts with outrage potential, especially while knee-jerk responses are flooding in and before measured comments have had time to rise to the top. Recent example was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33931384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33931384 about cash limits - Sooo many comments are just "Tyranny!", "EU bad!" and overall unmitigated cynicism.
  - t0bia_s 4y ago
    Their posts has same attitude like yours against those posts.
throwaway675309 4y ago
Not to obnoxiously gatekeep too much, but I'd like to think that the target demograph of hacker news is not the average pleb.

discreteevent 4y ago

It's the only bit of the response that I don't agree with. I don't come to HN solely for utilitarian purposes. If I think I'm frequently communicating with a machine on HN then then I'll stop going to HN. It really will kill HN for me. If I want to communicate with a machine for utilitarian purposes then I'll go directly to the machine and I will know that I'm communicating with a machine (a machine that cannot bring me any new experience from the real world that was not mediated in text. A machine that can only select that text on a statistical basis. A machine that was in part trained on my own words from the past!).

dang 4y ago
Yes, I agree - it was a throwaway line that I didn't think through. Maybe I'll add an edit. Thanks!
- bombcar 4y ago
  I thought it was Brillant personally - that if what we’re posting is pretty indistinguishable from a bot then it’s not really worth posting. Heck the “don’t post the obvious boring response” rule is basically that.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- clay-dreidels 4y ago
  I apologize
  - dang 4y ago
    If you mean about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950722, that's fine, but please email hn@ycombinator.com so we can sort it for you.
krageon 4y ago
> If I think I'm [...] If the problem is your faith, it is you that has to change and not the world. It's much easier that way around too :)

asne11 4y ago

Why is that? It's not about love or should. Rather, we __must__ continually do better to maintain superiority. Could you imagine what would unfold if humans give that up to a logical system? At best, we offload most things to the bot, become dependent, reduce unused cognitive (and physical?) abilities. At worst, a more capable thing determines (a group of) humans are not logical. Then it would move to solve this problem as trained. Either way, i really like the scenario where we instead harness the power of AI for solving existential problems for which we've been ill equipped (will Yellowstone erupt this year?, how could the world more effectively share resources) and getting smarter in the process. Can we do that? I have faith :-)

jacquesm 4y ago
The problem is that (1) human hardware is fixed and (2) computer hardware is variable and getting better all the time and (3) computer software is variable and getting better all the time. The question then is if and when they cross over and the recent developments in this domain have me seriously worried that such cross over is inevitable. Human/AI hybrid may well be slowed down by the human bit...
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  We could work on (1) right? Or as our biological component ceases to be useful to our hybrid self, we can discard it, like a baby tooth. We thought chess or go defined humanity, turns out it is driving.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    No thanks, for me. I'll be happy to be just biological and interact with computers through keyboards and screens.
    - wizeman 4y ago
      In the future, it might be AI who designs better "hardware"/wetware for humans. If you don't change your mind (no pun intended) but most of humanity does, it sounds like you'll just be left behind, like very old people who don't even know how to use a fixed-line telephone, never mind a smartphone, computer or the internet. Except, perhaps, in a much more profound/extreme manner.

tootie 4y ago

My gut feeling is that we're still nowhere near that point. GPT is based on it's incredibly large and diverse model based on a huge corpus of human writing. Anything it creates will always be derived from what humans have already done. It can't easily react to new information nor can it make inferences beyond what it's told. I could be wrong but as impressive as the tech is, it will never be able to make deductions or inferences.

throw_me_5555 4y ago

It is same idea behind https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/