4 ms·

I watched the video. Chat GPT is impressive, but exactly as the person creating the video mentioned, the deeper you get into the project, the easier it is for C

by magpi3 4y ago

I watched the video. Chat GPT is impressive, but exactly as the person creating the video mentioned, the deeper you get into the project, the easier it is for Chat GPT to get confused. And Chat GPT has no idea it's confused. You have to point out each individual error, and the Chat GPT scans for it, makes a correction, and potentially introduces more errors. I don't see how you could use it with any confidence on a project with sufficient complexity. EDIT And here is something else that just struck me. The errors in the code are obvious the minute you run the program, particularly in the beginning when the population dies off after day 1. Chat GPT is apparently incapable of running the simulation to check if its code actually makes sense. It needs someone to tell it. Think about that for a second. Can you imagine a fellow programmer handing you a piece of code without bothering to try to run it first? I can see Chat GPT as an advanced assistant who can save a programmer a LOT of time right now, but definitely nothing more than that.

dimitriye98 4y ago
The thing is, that's a capability which is likely to get added into AI harnesses very soon in the future. Look at the difference between Bing Chat and ChatGPT. Now consider when we have not a 32k context length model, but a 1m CL model, or even 1g CL, and that model can search the web for information, act on it, compile and test the code, diagnose the errors by again searching the web for information, etc. ChatGPT is the simplest possible use of the model, with nothing but user input -> model output. The thing is, tests have already been done with having these models act as agents, and they perform exceedingly well when appropriately instructed. It's not about right now. It's about 1 year from now, or maybe even merely 6 months from now.
- magpi3 4y ago
  I understand the expectation, but I am definitely in the "I'll see it when I believe it camp." Which is not to say that I am not impressed by what it can do now. I am. There is just no way I would trust it without first thoroughly examining the code it produced.
splatzone 4y ago
Is it not possible to write a script which repeatedly attempts to run the code, then sends the errors back to GPT to be fixed? Then it changes the code based on GPT’s requests and runs it again, refining it until some test condition is met
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
While I agree with you about the status of ChatGPT right now, it seems pretty obvious to me that all of the problems you state will be easily surmountable in time, and I've just been shocked at the pace of advancements in AI in the past couple years. I think it's totally plausible that the AI community hits a "brick wall" eventually in some number of years with regards to their pursuit of AGI with LLMs, but the problems you point out seem to me exactly the type of things LLMs can solve with more training data/parameters/dimensions, and added functionality to test code. Also, I see lots of comments downplaying the potential impacts of LLMs because they can hallucinate or they have errors, and though I agree with all these points, I also want to shout "Gang, we're having a fully natural, back-and-forth conversation, with a computer. It speaks English and French and TypeScript!" This is stuff that seemed fully planted in the realm of science fiction only a decade or so ago. For example, I'm not sure I've ever seen ChatGPT make a grammatical mistake, or even generate code that can't compile (though I have seen ChatGPT "crap out" if the program it's writing gets too long). I think I'm naturally a pretty skeptical person when it comes to tech hype, to the point of usually being over-conservative about potential impacts (I drastically underestimated the impact mobile would have on society, for example). But with ChatGPT, I feel like I need to take breaks just from the constant mind-blowing nature of it.

by magpi3 4y ago

dimitriye98 4y ago

The thing is, that's a capability which is likely to get added into AI harnesses very soon in the future. Look at the difference between Bing Chat and ChatGPT. Now consider when we have not a 32k context length model, but a 1m CL model, or even 1g CL, and that model can search the web for information, act on it, compile and test the code, diagnose the errors by again searching the web for information, etc. ChatGPT is the simplest possible use of the model, with nothing but user input -> model output. The thing is, tests have already been done with having these models act as agents, and they perform exceedingly well when appropriately instructed. It's not about right now. It's about 1 year from now, or maybe even merely 6 months from now.

magpi3 4y ago
I understand the expectation, but I am definitely in the "I'll see it when I believe it camp." Which is not to say that I am not impressed by what it can do now. I am. There is just no way I would trust it without first thoroughly examining the code it produced.

splatzone 4y ago

Is it not possible to write a script which repeatedly attempts to run the code, then sends the errors back to GPT to be fixed? Then it changes the code based on GPT’s requests and runs it again, refining it until some test condition is met

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

While I agree with you about the status of ChatGPT right now, it seems pretty obvious to me that all of the problems you state will be easily surmountable in time, and I've just been shocked at the pace of advancements in AI in the past couple years. I think it's totally plausible that the AI community hits a "brick wall" eventually in some number of years with regards to their pursuit of AGI with LLMs, but the problems you point out seem to me exactly the type of things LLMs can solve with more training data/parameters/dimensions, and added functionality to test code. Also, I see lots of comments downplaying the potential impacts of LLMs because they can hallucinate or they have errors, and though I agree with all these points, I also want to shout "Gang, we're having a fully natural, back-and-forth conversation, with a computer. It speaks English and French and TypeScript!" This is stuff that seemed fully planted in the realm of science fiction only a decade or so ago. For example, I'm not sure I've ever seen ChatGPT make a grammatical mistake, or even generate code that can't compile (though I have seen ChatGPT "crap out" if the program it's writing gets too long). I think I'm naturally a pretty skeptical person when it comes to tech hype, to the point of usually being over-conservative about potential impacts (I drastically underestimated the impact mobile would have on society, for example). But with ChatGPT, I feel like I need to take breaks just from the constant mind-blowing nature of it.