4 ms·

While I think the jury is still out on whether ChatGPT is truly useful or not, passing an L3 hiring test is not evidence of that one way or another.

pixl97 4y ago
If it doesn't point out that ChatGPT is useful, especially if its proven it is not, then maybe the hiring tests are not useful.
- Nursie 4y ago
  We have a winner …
- cevn 4y ago
  That's exactly what it proves..
- morelisp 4y ago
  Well, what it shows is that hiring tests are not useful as Turing tests. But nobody designed them to be or expected them to be! At best it "proves" is that hiring tests are not sufficient. But again, nobody thought they were. And even still, the assumption a human is taking the hiring test still seems reasonable. Why overengineer your process?
- layer8 4y ago
  The hiring tests are designed to serve as a predictor for human applicants. How well an LLM does on them doesn’t necessarily say anything about the usefulness of those tests as said predictor.
dariusj18 4y ago
I just used to it write a function for me yesterday. I had previously googled a few times and came up dry, asked Chat GPT and it came out with a solution I had not considered, and was better than what I was thinking.
petesergeant 4y ago
> the jury is still out on whether ChatGPT is truly useful or not I'd pay $100 a month for ChatGPT. It allows me to ask free-form questions about some open-source packages with truly appalling docs and usually gets them right, and saves me a bunch of time. It helps me understand technical language in papers I'm reading at the moment regarding stats. It's been useful to find good Google search terms for various bits of history I wanted to find out more about. I don't think the jury is out at all on whether it's useful. The jury is out on the degree to which it can replace humans for tasks, and I'd suggest the answer is "no" for most tasks.

pixl97 4y ago

If it doesn't point out that ChatGPT is useful, especially if its proven it is not, then maybe the hiring tests are not useful.

Nursie 4y ago
We have a winner …
cevn 4y ago
That's exactly what it proves..
morelisp 4y ago
Well, what it shows is that hiring tests are not useful as Turing tests. But nobody designed them to be or expected them to be! At best it "proves" is that hiring tests are not sufficient. But again, nobody thought they were. And even still, the assumption a human is taking the hiring test still seems reasonable. Why overengineer your process?
layer8 4y ago
The hiring tests are designed to serve as a predictor for human applicants. How well an LLM does on them doesn’t necessarily say anything about the usefulness of those tests as said predictor.

dariusj18 4y ago

I just used to it write a function for me yesterday. I had previously googled a few times and came up dry, asked Chat GPT and it came out with a solution I had not considered, and was better than what I was thinking.

petesergeant 4y ago

> the jury is still out on whether ChatGPT is truly useful or not I'd pay $100 a month for ChatGPT. It allows me to ask free-form questions about some open-source packages with truly appalling docs and usually gets them right, and saves me a bunch of time. It helps me understand technical language in papers I'm reading at the moment regarding stats. It's been useful to find good Google search terms for various bits of history I wanted to find out more about. I don't think the jury is out at all on whether it's useful. The jury is out on the degree to which it can replace humans for tasks, and I'd suggest the answer is "no" for most tasks.