6 ms·
>Yet I am still skeptical AI can assemble assets and html from scratch :) the skepticism and the general dismissive tone on HN baffles me. you're talking to a
by ux-app 4y ago
>Yet I am still skeptical AI can assemble assets and html from scratch :)
the skepticism and the general dismissive tone on HN baffles me.
you're talking to a computer in English ffs and it not only understands you, it goes away and does useful work.
literal science fiction 5 years ago, and now it's somehow: yawn <insert random nitpick>????
talk about hard to impress!
- slimebot80 4y agoOh hai. Did you not notice the smiley face at the end of my sentence? Less about any dismissive tone I may have, and more about your terse jumping-in defending computerz.
- awb 4y ago> you're talking to a computer in English ffs and it not only understands you, it goes away and does useful work. Google has “understood” English queries for a while now in the sense that you can type a question in English into the search bar and it goes off and does “useful work”. The problem with these AI implementations is that it goes off and does work, but not always useful work. In many cases it’s wrong. In many cases the result is below entry-level. In those times where it can pass a structured test like a bar exam, then absolutely praise it and get curious about how it can add value to people’s lives. But in this instance, it couldn’t pass a CS 101 or Design 101 class. It’s on its way, but these claims of being able to use AI to create websites are premature. At this pace we might be there in a few years or even months, but right now the quality is lacking from any demo I’ve seen and in my own attempts as a designer to use it in the design process.
- ux-app 4y agoyou've got to be joking mate. >Google has “understood” English queries you can't, with a straight face, be comparing a Google search to what ChatGPT is doing. C'mon man. >In many cases it’s wrong. In many cases the result is below entry-level. Once again I'm baffled by this dismissal. I don't think you actually understand what you're seeing with ChatGPT. There is very interesting emergent behaviour occurring. Trying to explain the behaviour is literally cutting edge research. >but right now the quality is lacking the technology was literal science fiction 3 years ago, what it can do is astonishing. If you're not jaw on the floor astonished then you simply don't understand what kind of a leap this represents.
- thedorkknight 4y agoThis technology was not literally science fiction three years ago. The initial gpt3 beta was released in June 2020.
- ux-app 4y agowhat's your point?
- apsurd 4y agocurious what the emergent behavior is. it's a massive hash lookup table at a scale never accomplished and then you can lookup recursively and such. then follows whether humans/consciousness is not also just a hash lookup. humans have emergent property of consciousness, so philosophy aside, what's currently emerginent in chatgpt?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- shock-value 4y agoThe advancement with these LLMs lies in the fact that they can effectively learn to recognize patterns within “large-ish” input text sequences and probabilistically generate a likely next word given those patterns. It’s a genuine advancement. However it is still just pattern matching. And describing anything it’s doing as “behavior” is a real stretch given that it is a feed-forward network that does not incorporate any notion of agency, memory, or deliberation into its processing.
- throwaway290 4y agoIf it's remarkable you're easily impressed or you don't know about its shortcomings. Likely it'll remain an engine for parlor tricks and infinite "demos" for foreseeable future, the many critical mistakes it makes make it impractical (you can't trust any information it outputs without verifying yourself it's not a hallucination again). After all the more text you autocomplete, the more text you need to check. You're making it sound as if it's something comparable to the development of the Internet in its impact.
- slimebot80 4y agoI'll take your word for it, but pesky parlor tricks have been persisting in impressing people for a good few centuries now.
- throwaway290 4y agoThere are tricks and there are transformative changes but they are not the same. In this case the flashy trick is based on some interesting developments but IMO it's unclear whether they will lead to transformative changes
- hourago 4y ago> the skepticism and the general dismissive tone on HN baffles me. I think that it comes from having high expectations. It took me four or five questions until Open AI chat started to write lies, and half trues. When talking with it I feel like a teacher trying to get the correct answer from a student that does not get it. I give it cues, tips, bound the answer and yet it manages to get things wrong. So, the worst part of Open AI chat is that it gets very boring to work with after the first awe. It is a great piece of technology, it is impressive. But as a product it is dull. And I need to double check its answer with Google each time, so why bother? Using Chat AI for Bing is like using blockchain for cryptocurrencies. It is a solution looking for a problem. Bing is the wrong answer, people should accept that and look for better uses for it. They are out there for sure.