4 ms·
Sorry, my question, sounds snippy now that I reread it. It sounds like you’re qualified to have strong opinions about it :-) And that’s fair, you’re exciting t
by ericd 4y ago
Sorry, my question, sounds snippy now that I reread it. It sounds like you’re qualified to have strong opinions about it :-)
And that’s fair, you’re exciting the existing network, not training/changing its values fundamentally. But you can do a lot with that excitation, because it’s already got a lot to work with. And I don’t think this is very far off from how people work with new ideas in the immediate term - when they first hear about them, they think of them in terms of things they already understand.
It has been my experience that it’s generally capable of getting closer to the target, but maybe I just haven’t tried to push it past its capabilities.
- roflyear 4y agoYou're fine, thanks for the apology. I agree that GPT is very impressive, but just today for example I asked it how I can make a "virtual column" in Postgres, and it spun its gears. I pasted the error I got from Postgres, and it said "oh, it's because you're using this function. here try this solution that doesn't use that function!" And the solution... used that function!! Was not even a complex ask. Concat of two other columns. I admit it was a good pointer in the right direction ("generated column" vs what I came up with "virtual column") and it was really impressive that it had a syntactically correct solution (though it didn't work) But, if it can't do something as simple as not give me the function that doesn't work and that it understands doesn't work, that I told it it doesn't work, that the error says doesn't exist, etc.. in its new solution... after many prompts! (I exhausted my GPT-4 quota)....! It's bad. It just isn't going to do much here past the initial "get me started" which, I do admit, is really impressive! It just isn't what people are claiming it is :)