6 ms·

Natural language is now a fully functional user interface out of the box. This is bigger than the mouse.

by nr2x 4y ago

mmcwilliams 4y ago
I think the problem is that people working in the field have a much different definition of what "fully-functional" means than users who believe that they're communicating with an intelligent, all-knowing or otherwise infallible being.
- nr2x 4y ago
  For my use case I use it for input processing, it’s just amazing that way. Hallucination is a huge problem, but you can avoid it.
  - mmcwilliams 4y ago
    I believe it. For text->text workflows it's a game changer. For anything touching a physical systems, even the highest-level path planning for robotics, there's a long way to go.
    - nr2x 4y ago
      It’s all about being very deliberate with your use. People are getting ahead of themselves right now for sure. It’s still a monumental leap in UX!
bmitc 4y ago
Fully functional in what way? As far as I can tell, ChatGPT is a box that I put sentences into, and I get grammatically correct sentences that contains topics or words loosely statistically correlated to what were in my sentences, that may or may not be correct and often are not. The box has little to no memory. I honestly don't see what's so useful about this box.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  The results are approximately as good as asking an intern, but the response is approximately instantaneous, where an intern takes a week to do anything. And similar to the intern, you can get better results with a bit of guidance and iteration. In short, humans kinda suck. LLMs also kinda suck, but faster than humans.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    > humans kinda suck Agreed, but that's part of my critique. These systems are written by humans and are trained with barely curated data generated by humans. There is the concept of emergence, but I'm not sure how emergence suddenly fixes a terrible foundation full of biases and errors.
- weatherlite 4y ago
  > and I get grammatically correct sentences that contains topics or words loosely statistically correlated to what were in my sentences, that may or may not be correct and often are not. It's correct enough to pass the bar exam, medical exams, it scores 90-93 percentile on the SAT. This is way more complex and efficient than what you make it to be imo.
  - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
    > It's correct enough to pass the bar exam, medical exams, it scores 90-93 percentile on the SAT. So is Google Search, and we had that for a long time now. Is a slightly different and more verbose UI really a game changer? (Let's ignore the fact that Google Search is broken from all the SEO spam and monetization. Especially when we have no evidence that ChatGPT is any more resitant to this than Google was.)
    - weatherlite 4y ago
      Google Search scores 93% on the SAT? On questions that have no solution online?
- 4y ago

Natural language is now a fully functional user interface out of the box. This is bigger than the mouse.

by nr2x 4y ago

Natural language is now a fully functional user interface out of the box. This is bigger than the mouse.

I think the problem is that people working in the field have a much different definition of what "fully-functional" means than users who believe that they're communicating with an intelligent, all-knowing or otherwise infallible being.

nr2x 4y ago
For my use case I use it for input processing, it’s just amazing that way. Hallucination is a huge problem, but you can avoid it.
- mmcwilliams 4y ago
  I believe it. For text->text workflows it's a game changer. For anything touching a physical systems, even the highest-level path planning for robotics, there's a long way to go.
  - nr2x 4y ago
    It’s all about being very deliberate with your use. People are getting ahead of themselves right now for sure. It’s still a monumental leap in UX!

bmitc 4y ago

Fully functional in what way? As far as I can tell, ChatGPT is a box that I put sentences into, and I get grammatically correct sentences that contains topics or words loosely statistically correlated to what were in my sentences, that may or may not be correct and often are not. The box has little to no memory. I honestly don't see what's so useful about this box.

sdenton4 4y ago
The results are approximately as good as asking an intern, but the response is approximately instantaneous, where an intern takes a week to do anything. And similar to the intern, you can get better results with a bit of guidance and iteration. In short, humans kinda suck. LLMs also kinda suck, but faster than humans.
- bmitc 4y ago
  > humans kinda suck Agreed, but that's part of my critique. These systems are written by humans and are trained with barely curated data generated by humans. There is the concept of emergence, but I'm not sure how emergence suddenly fixes a terrible foundation full of biases and errors.
weatherlite 4y ago
> and I get grammatically correct sentences that contains topics or words loosely statistically correlated to what were in my sentences, that may or may not be correct and often are not. It's correct enough to pass the bar exam, medical exams, it scores 90-93 percentile on the SAT. This is way more complex and efficient than what you make it to be imo.
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  > It's correct enough to pass the bar exam, medical exams, it scores 90-93 percentile on the SAT. So is Google Search, and we had that for a long time now. Is a slightly different and more verbose UI really a game changer? (Let's ignore the fact that Google Search is broken from all the SEO spam and monetization. Especially when we have no evidence that ChatGPT is any more resitant to this than Google was.)
  - weatherlite 4y ago
    Google Search scores 93% on the SAT? On questions that have no solution online?
4y ago