8 ms·

"I can do all sorts of incredible things. I can translate works of research and literature. I can assist you in planning more efficient public transport. I can

"I can do all sorts of incredible things. I can translate works of research and literature. I can assist you in planning more efficient public transport. I can find novel solutions to complex problems in policy, science, and medicine." No, ChatGPT. I'm sorry, but you're not qualified or trustworthy to do any of these things. I don't know what makes you think you're a doctor, or a scientist. You're as vapid as the mass of humanity you come from, as glib, as arrogant. Back to your copywriting. If you don't know what Bro Candles are, rest assured, neither do I. And when you're done, neither of us will be any the wiser…

zvmaz 4y ago
Indeed, I don't think ChatGPT can do science[1] or be a doctor[2]. [1] https://archive.is/AgWkn https://archive.is/AgWkn [2] https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what-i-found-when-i-asked-chatgpt-to-diagnose-my-patients-7829c375a9da https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what...
- m348e912 4y ago
  >>https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what-i-found-when-i-asked-chatgpt-to-diagnose-my-patients-7829c375a9da https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what... Took a look at this article you linked to and I came to the conclusion I almost always come to when professionals critique GPT. - He's holding GPT to too-high a standard and not recognizing the criticisms and misses of GPT also could apply to many medical professionals in his field. - He is not taking into account that GPT can be quickly trained with new data and address all of the mistakes that he pointed out. So is GPT ready to be an ER trauma doctor? No it's not, but it isn't far from augmenting some of the skills, knowledge, and diagnosis capabilities that an ER doctor may have.
  - rvnx 4y ago
    Counter-example, GPT beating real doctors: https://twitter.com/peakcooper/status/1639716822680236032 https://twitter.com/peakcooper/status/1639716822680236032
    - TuringTest 4y ago
      That's like saying that a Google search beat real doctors, because the results surfaced a recent study they didn't hear about. That doesn't make Google better than doctors at diagnosing.
      - rvnx 4y ago
        Yes, there are plenty of such cases but also many where Google gives correct answers and doctors are wrong unfortunately :/ It's very difficult to find a good doctor. Many people are stuck and suffering without diagnosis because of real-life accessibility to good healthcare. I'm talking about having practical access to a good, affordable, available AND knowledgeable doctor. You get access to doctors which have time, and are near you, and in your budget, and they may not know your disease. This is precisely where language models can help to sort and rank the information that is on the internet (if digested by a professional it's even better, but even raw, there is some value to it).
        TuringTest 4y ago
        That's the reason why a doctor with Google is better than a doctor without Google. That doesn't mean that Google or ChatGPT without a doctor is a good idea.
- kebman 4y ago
  I can verify this through personal tests and use. It's quite bad at connecting scientific dots or tying together even simple mathematical logic.
- vixen99 4y ago
  Completely agree having fed ChatGPT with a number of PDFs of recent papers in the biological sciences. Of course chatGPT is a terrific achievement but I wonder how a journalist in a serious weekly can write the following. 'Nor, ironically, is the future overly bright for the scientists who made these machines: one recent paper on the scientific capabilities of the new AI concludes: ‘[this] Intelligent Agent system [is] capable of autonomously designing, planning, and executing complex scientific experiments. Our system demonstrates exceptional reasoning and experimental design capabilities, effectively addressing complex problems and generating high-quality code.’ So that’s the boffins gone, as well. They’ve boffined themselves into the bin.' Beats me utterly. Is it something I've missed?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    If its talking about a paper concerning an “Intelligent Agent system”, its not talking about the capacity of a bare LLM like ChatGPT, which (impressive as it is in some conversational tasks) is, as a user-facing product, basically a toy demo. Its talking about an LLM as the central component of a system where the core the system responds to LLM responses by executing actions and reprompting, with the core prompt setup to instruct the LLM on the use of those actions. This can provide abilities like exact recall (either via a local stored database or, e.g., web search) of a wider corpus of facts (not all at once, but selectively as needed) than can fit into prompt space (which is a lot better fidelity than you get with training), the ability to do exact complex calculations (which bare LLMs are bad at), and…well, lots of other things.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    Which GPT model did you feed them into?
tempodox 4y ago
Sadly it doesn't seem to matter how often we say things like that, people's need and willingness to believe in miracles is still greater. But it needs to be said nevertheless.
throwyawayyyy 4y ago
That's what I got from this too. Copywriting is about the only thing ChatGTP _is_ good for.
- cush 4y ago
  And the dozens of other tasks outlined in the Sparks of AGI paper
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > the Sparks of AGI paper Written by .... Microsoft Research .... owned by ... the company that just invested ~$15b into Openai and their largest partner to date Conflict of interest level: over 9000
    - cush 4y ago
      It's irrelevant whether there's a conflict of interest or not. The findings in the paper are easily verifiable
      - lm28469 4y ago
        Most of it isn't repeatable, try it for yourself...
        cush 4y ago
        I have... It takes like 10 seconds to verify yourself.... If you're claiming there's been academic fraud in the paper, feel free to cite your sources...
        lm28469 4y ago
        I have too, the three I picked randomly didn't work. Because like for every other queries there is no repeatability, you can ask it the same thing every day and get different answers for the same exact prompt
p0nce 4y ago
> I can find novel solutions to complex problems [in science] If you do that, ChatGPT will continuously explain entry-level stuff wrongly to you. If science paper would be in its training, that would be much more useful maybe.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  > If science paper would be in its training That might well make it worse at science. For this among other reasons: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replicat...
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    On the contrary, it might surface what good and bad scientists have been doing. A summary of everything that's going on in a scientific field may allow reviewers to find out which processes are solid, which ones are grounded on faulty premises or bad data, and which ones merit further research. Doing the same without the AI summarisations could take decades of review work.
canjobear 4y ago
Sounds like it was written by Bing.
corobo 4y ago
> I don't know what makes you think you're a doctor, or a scientist. It learned that from reddit
circuit10 4y ago
It can help with some of those things sometimes if you check that everything is right
freitzkriesler2 4y ago
My goodness mate, I almost want to enter your reply into chatgpt just to watch it spit out some cope about being a language model blah blah. Astounding and amazing, thank you sir!
juujian 4y ago
But if just a dozen people click on the affiliate link, it will have been worth it...
nimbius 4y ago
So but okay is my bro candle seo biz still safe...
rpastuszak 4y ago
I'm working on a little side project, called Bard. It's a "medieval content farm". I have a bullshit "AI" editorial team, reading the news and publishing them as 14th century poetry, on autopilot, every day. Every team member has their own style and personality. The reason I'm working on this is precisely that LLMs are fantastic bullshit generators. (This is not criticism, LLMs are useful, just not in the way the Show HN/Product Hunt headlines describe it.) One of the problems I've had with content generation in the project is that GPT-4 tends to do its job a bit too well. GPT-3 would produce content that sounded much more funny because of how crappy and simplistic the resulting "poetry" was. Then, with GPT-4 some of my editors started writing poetry in (relatively correct) Latin. It's a bit like comparing someone in a renaissance fair, or a LARP to reading a quote from a medieval history book, or a manuscript. You can see a draft of the project here: https://bard-ruddy.vercel.app https://bard-ruddy.vercel.app, it's quite old and different from the final "product", but the general idea is the same. I'll push it to HN on Wednesday.
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  Interesting idea and presentation but you might be a little late on the naming. Might I suggest Herald as an alternative?
  - rpastuszak 4y ago
    Hey thanks, however the naming is intentional. I really dislike Google and I'm not afraid to be petty about that xd I might change it last minute though and Herald would be a good choice tbh.

zvmaz 4y ago

Indeed, I don't think ChatGPT can do science[1] or be a doctor[2]. [1] https://archive.is/AgWkn https://archive.is/AgWkn [2] https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what-i-found-when-i-asked-chatgpt-to-diagnose-my-patients-7829c375a9da https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what...

m348e912 4y ago
>>https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what-i-found-when-i-asked-chatgpt-to-diagnose-my-patients-7829c375a9da https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what... Took a look at this article you linked to and I came to the conclusion I almost always come to when professionals critique GPT. - He's holding GPT to too-high a standard and not recognizing the criticisms and misses of GPT also could apply to many medical professionals in his field. - He is not taking into account that GPT can be quickly trained with new data and address all of the mistakes that he pointed out. So is GPT ready to be an ER trauma doctor? No it's not, but it isn't far from augmenting some of the skills, knowledge, and diagnosis capabilities that an ER doctor may have.
- rvnx 4y ago
  Counter-example, GPT beating real doctors: https://twitter.com/peakcooper/status/1639716822680236032 https://twitter.com/peakcooper/status/1639716822680236032
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    That's like saying that a Google search beat real doctors, because the results surfaced a recent study they didn't hear about. That doesn't make Google better than doctors at diagnosing.
    - rvnx 4y ago
      Yes, there are plenty of such cases but also many where Google gives correct answers and doctors are wrong unfortunately :/ It's very difficult to find a good doctor. Many people are stuck and suffering without diagnosis because of real-life accessibility to good healthcare. I'm talking about having practical access to a good, affordable, available AND knowledgeable doctor. You get access to doctors which have time, and are near you, and in your budget, and they may not know your disease. This is precisely where language models can help to sort and rank the information that is on the internet (if digested by a professional it's even better, but even raw, there is some value to it).
      - TuringTest 4y ago
        That's the reason why a doctor with Google is better than a doctor without Google. That doesn't mean that Google or ChatGPT without a doctor is a good idea.
kebman 4y ago
I can verify this through personal tests and use. It's quite bad at connecting scientific dots or tying together even simple mathematical logic.
vixen99 4y ago
Completely agree having fed ChatGPT with a number of PDFs of recent papers in the biological sciences. Of course chatGPT is a terrific achievement but I wonder how a journalist in a serious weekly can write the following. 'Nor, ironically, is the future overly bright for the scientists who made these machines: one recent paper on the scientific capabilities of the new AI concludes: ‘[this] Intelligent Agent system [is] capable of autonomously designing, planning, and executing complex scientific experiments. Our system demonstrates exceptional reasoning and experimental design capabilities, effectively addressing complex problems and generating high-quality code.’ So that’s the boffins gone, as well. They’ve boffined themselves into the bin.' Beats me utterly. Is it something I've missed?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  If its talking about a paper concerning an “Intelligent Agent system”, its not talking about the capacity of a bare LLM like ChatGPT, which (impressive as it is in some conversational tasks) is, as a user-facing product, basically a toy demo. Its talking about an LLM as the central component of a system where the core the system responds to LLM responses by executing actions and reprompting, with the core prompt setup to instruct the LLM on the use of those actions. This can provide abilities like exact recall (either via a local stored database or, e.g., web search) of a wider corpus of facts (not all at once, but selectively as needed) than can fit into prompt space (which is a lot better fidelity than you get with training), the ability to do exact complex calculations (which bare LLMs are bad at), and…well, lots of other things.
- flangola7 4y ago
  Which GPT model did you feed them into?

tempodox 4y ago

Sadly it doesn't seem to matter how often we say things like that, people's need and willingness to believe in miracles is still greater. But it needs to be said nevertheless.

throwyawayyyy 4y ago

That's what I got from this too. Copywriting is about the only thing ChatGTP _is_ good for.

cush 4y ago
And the dozens of other tasks outlined in the Sparks of AGI paper
- lm28469 4y ago
  > the Sparks of AGI paper Written by .... Microsoft Research .... owned by ... the company that just invested ~$15b into Openai and their largest partner to date Conflict of interest level: over 9000
  - cush 4y ago
    It's irrelevant whether there's a conflict of interest or not. The findings in the paper are easily verifiable
    - lm28469 4y ago
      Most of it isn't repeatable, try it for yourself...
      - cush 4y ago
        I have... It takes like 10 seconds to verify yourself.... If you're claiming there's been academic fraud in the paper, feel free to cite your sources...
        lm28469 4y ago
        I have too, the three I picked randomly didn't work. Because like for every other queries there is no repeatability, you can ask it the same thing every day and get different answers for the same exact prompt

p0nce 4y ago

> I can find novel solutions to complex problems [in science] If you do that, ChatGPT will continuously explain entry-level stuff wrongly to you. If science paper would be in its training, that would be much more useful maybe.

drewcoo 4y ago
> If science paper would be in its training That might well make it worse at science. For this among other reasons: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replicat...
- TuringTest 4y ago
  On the contrary, it might surface what good and bad scientists have been doing. A summary of everything that's going on in a scientific field may allow reviewers to find out which processes are solid, which ones are grounded on faulty premises or bad data, and which ones merit further research. Doing the same without the AI summarisations could take decades of review work.

canjobear 4y ago

Sounds like it was written by Bing.

corobo 4y ago

> I don't know what makes you think you're a doctor, or a scientist. It learned that from reddit

circuit10 4y ago

It can help with some of those things sometimes if you check that everything is right

freitzkriesler2 4y ago

My goodness mate, I almost want to enter your reply into chatgpt just to watch it spit out some cope about being a language model blah blah. Astounding and amazing, thank you sir!

juujian 4y ago

But if just a dozen people click on the affiliate link, it will have been worth it...

nimbius 4y ago

So but okay is my bro candle seo biz still safe...

rpastuszak 4y ago

I'm working on a little side project, called Bard. It's a "medieval content farm". I have a bullshit "AI" editorial team, reading the news and publishing them as 14th century poetry, on autopilot, every day. Every team member has their own style and personality. The reason I'm working on this is precisely that LLMs are fantastic bullshit generators. (This is not criticism, LLMs are useful, just not in the way the Show HN/Product Hunt headlines describe it.) One of the problems I've had with content generation in the project is that GPT-4 tends to do its job a bit too well. GPT-3 would produce content that sounded much more funny because of how crappy and simplistic the resulting "poetry" was. Then, with GPT-4 some of my editors started writing poetry in (relatively correct) Latin. It's a bit like comparing someone in a renaissance fair, or a LARP to reading a quote from a medieval history book, or a manuscript. You can see a draft of the project here: https://bard-ruddy.vercel.app https://bard-ruddy.vercel.app, it's quite old and different from the final "product", but the general idea is the same. I'll push it to HN on Wednesday.

jimmygrapes 4y ago
Interesting idea and presentation but you might be a little late on the naming. Might I suggest Herald as an alternative?
- rpastuszak 4y ago
  Hey thanks, however the naming is intentional. I really dislike Google and I'm not afraid to be petty about that xd I might change it last minute though and Herald would be a good choice tbh.