4 ms·

Here are some of my questions of today: > We need to travel by train from Rome to Montpellier, but it is too many stops to do at once. So we would like to stay

by ralfn 4y ago

Here are some of my questions of today: > We need to travel by train from Rome to Montpellier, but it is too many stops to do at once. So we would like to stay somewhere for a day in between Rome and Montpellier. What are our options? It needs to be safe, not adding a lot of extra travel time and suitable for a workathon It returns with four options, approximate travel times and advantages and disadvantages. It understood coworking cafes or bussiness hotels would be a requirement. > What are all the places an SSL certificate could be cached when calling an API from a Jupiter notebook? It mentioned some obvious things such OS/browser/network-device, but also that a particular python package exists that is doing this at the application level as well, but only in memory and that a restart of the Jupiter kernel would resolve that. Now, I'm curious with what kind of keywords I could get meaningful output from Google for these two examples. What i suspect is happening is that you are micro managing your chat as if it's search. Picking keywords rather than just telling it the problem you are actually trying to solve. Splitting up your problem in sub problems and then trying to find each peace of information manually and combining it yourself to form a conclusion.

rstuart4133 4y ago
> It returns with four options, approximate travel times and advantages and disadvantages. This trust in it's response reminds me early days of the internet. That would be the time when the people who created it were just exploring what the technology could do. It was a wonderful time. People posted amazing HOWTO's to Usenet that were chock full of useful information, you only received email from like minded friends, and almost nothing was censored and most of it was useful. It looked like the future was bright. But then it grew so big you could not recognise most of the sources, and into that void stepped content aggregators like MySpace and Facebook I refuse to go near, and Alta Vista started ranking stuff by how much they were paid. Usenet was overrun by lies from spammers as was my inbox. And now if I don't run an ad-blocker, I find it difficult to differentiate Google's search results from the ads at the top, and near bloody impossible on sites like Amazon, and GMail / Hotmail mines my personal correspondence for ways to manipulate me. And so it will be with those concise AI responses. Except you have absolutely no way to cross verify - you only get what a machine that will likely be far smarted than any of us wants you to know, in order to maximise it's profit. Thank you, but I'll pass.
iudqnolq 4y ago
Every time I take a careful look at someone's handpicked example of GPT getting it right there's at least one serious mistake. > Florence, Italy: Florence is a beautiful city with a rich history and culture. It is only a 90-minute train ride from Rome, making it a convenient stopover point. Florence also has plenty of cafes, co-working spaces, and other amenities that are conducive to a workathon. Mistake: The purpose is to split up a long journey. Florence would split it into a 1.5h day and a 10.5h day. > Marseille, France: Marseille is a bustling port city on the Mediterranean coast of France. It is about a 3.5-hour train ride from Rome and has a vibrant cultural scene and a variety of co-working spaces and cafes. You could spend the day exploring the city's many museums, parks, and markets. Mistake: Factually wrong about the travel time, per Google maps GPT is off by a factor of 3. Mistake: The purpose is to split up a long journey. Marseille would split it into a 10.5h day and a 2h day. Mistake: Forgot about the workathon requirement
- vidarh 4y ago
  W/GPT4 for me it suggests Rome->Genoa, stay, then Genoa-> either Nice or Marseille, and then on to Montpellier. GPT3.5 suggested a list of Florence, Nice, Genoa and Marseille. When I asked it for a breakdown of the travel times, it got them pretty close ("Can you give me rough travel times for each of these options?") given the large variations in travel time depending on specific timing and transfers for several of these. When I then asked it for somewhere closer to the midway point, it didn't come through (it suggested Pisa, which is about as bad as Florence), Turin, which is an alternative to Genoa, but doesn't fix the imbalance, or Lyon which is about as bad as the Pisa option but in the opposite direction (fast train to Montpellier), but the options also aren't in aggregate much worse. The problem here is that there aren't as far as I can tell any very balanced options. You can try to do e.g. Ventimiglia or Sanremo (which GPT4 gave when I pressed it on splitting it more evenly), which will give you a more evenly distributed travel time, but because the overall travel time will be longer they're not at all obvious options. You also seems to focus on catching it out rather than getting a result. If you want precision from the first query, then you need to give far more precise questions. You need to treat it as a conversation, not a brief to be answered with a report. If you insist on treating it as a brief you will not get good results out of it. Your loss, in that case. For cases where a simple lookup will work, it's a waste. Just use Google. For cases where there is in fact not a single perfect option, and where you need to weigh pro and con, it works well with the caveat that you do indeed need to be careful and check specifics. The same way I'd check specifics if I had a conversation about this with a friend. With plugins, so it can verify precise details we can expect a significant leap in capability here. But even for now, the answers I got to this were ones I was happy with, and another reason for me to use it more.

by ralfn 4y ago

rstuart4133 4y ago

> It returns with four options, approximate travel times and advantages and disadvantages. This trust in it's response reminds me early days of the internet. That would be the time when the people who created it were just exploring what the technology could do. It was a wonderful time. People posted amazing HOWTO's to Usenet that were chock full of useful information, you only received email from like minded friends, and almost nothing was censored and most of it was useful. It looked like the future was bright. But then it grew so big you could not recognise most of the sources, and into that void stepped content aggregators like MySpace and Facebook I refuse to go near, and Alta Vista started ranking stuff by how much they were paid. Usenet was overrun by lies from spammers as was my inbox. And now if I don't run an ad-blocker, I find it difficult to differentiate Google's search results from the ads at the top, and near bloody impossible on sites like Amazon, and GMail / Hotmail mines my personal correspondence for ways to manipulate me. And so it will be with those concise AI responses. Except you have absolutely no way to cross verify - you only get what a machine that will likely be far smarted than any of us wants you to know, in order to maximise it's profit. Thank you, but I'll pass.

iudqnolq 4y ago

Every time I take a careful look at someone's handpicked example of GPT getting it right there's at least one serious mistake. > Florence, Italy: Florence is a beautiful city with a rich history and culture. It is only a 90-minute train ride from Rome, making it a convenient stopover point. Florence also has plenty of cafes, co-working spaces, and other amenities that are conducive to a workathon. Mistake: The purpose is to split up a long journey. Florence would split it into a 1.5h day and a 10.5h day. > Marseille, France: Marseille is a bustling port city on the Mediterranean coast of France. It is about a 3.5-hour train ride from Rome and has a vibrant cultural scene and a variety of co-working spaces and cafes. You could spend the day exploring the city's many museums, parks, and markets. Mistake: Factually wrong about the travel time, per Google maps GPT is off by a factor of 3. Mistake: The purpose is to split up a long journey. Marseille would split it into a 10.5h day and a 2h day. Mistake: Forgot about the workathon requirement

vidarh 4y ago
W/GPT4 for me it suggests Rome->Genoa, stay, then Genoa-> either Nice or Marseille, and then on to Montpellier. GPT3.5 suggested a list of Florence, Nice, Genoa and Marseille. When I asked it for a breakdown of the travel times, it got them pretty close ("Can you give me rough travel times for each of these options?") given the large variations in travel time depending on specific timing and transfers for several of these. When I then asked it for somewhere closer to the midway point, it didn't come through (it suggested Pisa, which is about as bad as Florence), Turin, which is an alternative to Genoa, but doesn't fix the imbalance, or Lyon which is about as bad as the Pisa option but in the opposite direction (fast train to Montpellier), but the options also aren't in aggregate much worse. The problem here is that there aren't as far as I can tell any very balanced options. You can try to do e.g. Ventimiglia or Sanremo (which GPT4 gave when I pressed it on splitting it more evenly), which will give you a more evenly distributed travel time, but because the overall travel time will be longer they're not at all obvious options. You also seems to focus on catching it out rather than getting a result. If you want precision from the first query, then you need to give far more precise questions. You need to treat it as a conversation, not a brief to be answered with a report. If you insist on treating it as a brief you will not get good results out of it. Your loss, in that case. For cases where a simple lookup will work, it's a waste. Just use Google. For cases where there is in fact not a single perfect option, and where you need to weigh pro and con, it works well with the caveat that you do indeed need to be careful and check specifics. The same way I'd check specifics if I had a conversation about this with a friend. With plugins, so it can verify precise details we can expect a significant leap in capability here. But even for now, the answers I got to this were ones I was happy with, and another reason for me to use it more.