2 ms·

The dude you replied to you gave out the sort of bad take I come here for. If anyone thinks genuinely that ChatGPT can meaningfully replace a software develope

The dude you replied to you gave out the sort of bad take I come here for. If anyone thinks genuinely that ChatGPT can meaningfully replace a software developer should be starting a tech business right now. You can replace basically your largest cost (staff wages, especially for expensive pesky software developers) with a $20 account that will work overtime, will never get tired, and whose performance will never fluctuate. No excuses for not getting insanely rich. Of course it's not happening, because it's bullshit. I am genuinely impressed and even excited with ChatGPT. It's an amazing tool, that would have been massively helpful when I needed a good NLP in the past. It will certainly be massively useful in the future. Hell, it's being a great assistant right now. But it's not General AI, and I do facepalm at people LARPing as if it were. General AI will in day exist, and knowledge jobs will most likely be a thing of the past at that point. How far in the future it is is anyone's guess (my prediction is in between 12 and 235 years in the future). We're just not there yet.

grugagag 4y ago
Im curious why you pick your bounds of 12 and 235?
- willismichael 4y ago
  Probably asked ChatGPT
hnfong 4y ago
There's a difference between being able to do logical reasoning, and being able to do everything a competent white collar worker can do. For one, there's a token limit and memory limit, which limits the scale of the problems current iterations of GPT can do (and this limitation is not a limitation of logical reasoning ability). There's also (for GPT) no way for one to fine tune or train the model to work better in a specific domain unless you're in bed with OpenAI/Microsoft. I think as a society we don't really have precise words for describing the different levels of intelligence, except in a "I know it when I see it" way. I don't think I'm LARPing in any way, I'm probably even less excited with it than you are given that you seem to be using it more often than I am. I'm just saying I think GPT does exhibit some logical reasoning abilities and not merely remembering statistical patterns.
- surgical_fire 4y ago
  > I'm just saying I think GPT does exhibit some logical reasoning abilities and not merely remembering statistical patterns. I agree with most of your reply, except this bit. I mean, generating a response through statistical language patterns is a sort of reasoning, and ChatGPT has been accurate enough to replace internet search for me quite often. But it also generates bullshit that an untrained eye would miss (because the bullshit it generated was statistically plausible). When it get things wrong it generates some comically wrong behavior. I had one case where it looped through variations of the same wrong response - precisely because it is unable to do any kind of logical reasoning upon faulty or inaccurate data.

grugagag 4y ago

Im curious why you pick your bounds of 12 and 235?

willismichael 4y ago
Probably asked ChatGPT

hnfong 4y ago

There's a difference between being able to do logical reasoning, and being able to do everything a competent white collar worker can do. For one, there's a token limit and memory limit, which limits the scale of the problems current iterations of GPT can do (and this limitation is not a limitation of logical reasoning ability). There's also (for GPT) no way for one to fine tune or train the model to work better in a specific domain unless you're in bed with OpenAI/Microsoft. I think as a society we don't really have precise words for describing the different levels of intelligence, except in a "I know it when I see it" way. I don't think I'm LARPing in any way, I'm probably even less excited with it than you are given that you seem to be using it more often than I am. I'm just saying I think GPT does exhibit some logical reasoning abilities and not merely remembering statistical patterns.

surgical_fire 4y ago
> I'm just saying I think GPT does exhibit some logical reasoning abilities and not merely remembering statistical patterns. I agree with most of your reply, except this bit. I mean, generating a response through statistical language patterns is a sort of reasoning, and ChatGPT has been accurate enough to replace internet search for me quite often. But it also generates bullshit that an untrained eye would miss (because the bullshit it generated was statistically plausible). When it get things wrong it generates some comically wrong behavior. I had one case where it looped through variations of the same wrong response - precisely because it is unable to do any kind of logical reasoning upon faulty or inaccurate data.