10 ms·

I'm in two minds about it. On one hand the internet (in general) has become so hard to find information on, and I agree with the author that GPT is a breath of

by devjab 3y ago

I'm in two minds about it. On one hand the internet (in general) has become so hard to find information on, and I agree with the author that GPT is a breath of fresh air. On the other hand I've seen GPT fail so miserably at topics that I'm knowledge about that I have a very hard time trusting anything it tells me. I'm not sure what the answer really is, but I'm not sure it's GPT. I wish we could go back to having search engines that actually led to useful information and not just advertisements, and I wish we had a GPT that would not tell lies. I doubt either of those wishes are going to come true though. Search engines are likely always going to be SEO'ed into uselessness and GPT isn't intentionally telling lies.

thsbrown 3y ago
Just out of curiosity are you using got 4 or 3.5?
userbinator 3y ago
It's become hard, and will become harder, precisely because of things like GPT (unintentionally) spreading misinformation. I'm against censorship in general, and this is no exception, but I do hope it leads to people becoming more critical of what they consume. However, I suspect that instead we will unfortunately see the continued cycle of creating large masses of people "educated" on such widely-propagated half-truths, while only a tiny subset of the population will have the actual truth.
- brokencode 3y ago
  The internet is a misinformation spreading machine. GPT is new and will surely improve over time, but I can’t say the same for the internet. In an ideal world, people would learn only from high quality sources like books and schools. But a shocking amount of people learn mostly through social media and whatever they find on Google. I think LLMs will provide a better alternative.
  - vanviegen 3y ago
    Exactly! LLMs will be able/are able to construct their answers not just based on one Reddit comment they found somewhere, but on "all* comments as well as more reliable sources, such as the actual source code for the thing under discussion, scientific debate, (case) law texts, books, etc. They already seem somewhat capable of weighing source reliability.
forrestthewoods 3y ago
> On the other hand I've seen GPT fail so miserably at topics that I'm knowledge about that I have a very hard time trusting anything it tells me. ChatGPT’s current super power is helping people get from 0-to-1 on a new topic. In particular if that topic is adjacent to or a different niche with your expertise. It’s not currently amazing at taking someone from intermediate to advanced knowledge. At least in my experience. If I’m using a new library/framework/API for the first time it’s amazing at answering the endless newbie questions I have.
Gigachad 3y ago
I've been using ChatGPT as a brainstorming tool rather than just relying on it for specific examples. Stuff like asking it for some ideas for things to learn on a topic.
simonw 3y ago
"I'm not sure what the answer really is, but I'm not sure it's GPT." My suggestion is to stick with it and get a feel for what it's good at. I've found that after a few months of using ChatGPT every day I've developed a pretty solid intuition for which questions are likely to get good answers and which are likely to trigger hallucinations. It's difficult to describe what those intuitions are though! One rule of thumb I've developed: if something is likely to be "common knowledge" - if it's something that is likely to have been discussed accurately on the internet by many different people - then ChatGPT is very likely to answer questions about it accurately.
- themodelplumber 3y ago
  > then ChatGPT is very likely to answer questions about it accurately. Uh, and sooo boringly, especially if there's even any tiny part of it that is developing or theoretical, and you want to learn about that part. I've used the phrase/request "more obscure (perspectives/explanations/etc)" with GPT so many times. (Try it, you might be surprised at alternative takes on things, takes which are not even necessarily conspiracy theories and such) ...Which has made me think: Maybe life is more boring, the more one thinks there are just really good one-and-done answers to most everything.
  - simonw 3y ago
    Yeah, there are so many fun ways you can make it more interesting. One of my favourite is to ask it to explain with analogies. The other day I was digging into the attention mechanism used to train LLMs, so I asked it: "Explain queries, keys, and values in the context of LLM attention using analogies from Terry Pratchett's Discworld" I find sometimes I get some real gems out of this that help me remember things much more effectively than just reading the basic explanation. (In case anyone's curious I ran that just now and got the following: https://gist.github.com/simonw/777b1d19f36beb39fb4216a0238fec13 https://gist.github.com/simonw/777b1d19f36beb39fb4216a0238fe... )
  - barrysteve 3y ago
    Jonathan Blow is spending up to a decade on a new programming language to get away from c++. Most everything has been covered in logical extensions of concepts started in the 80s-90s. Those products aren't good for our.. Ah there's no point commenting here anymore. HN is so blinkered in it's thinking. The feeling of flying high on lofty concepts and pretending to get a bird's eye view of tech is no longer worth the squeeze. The thought patterns here are predictable like slashdot. I don't belong here. Bye.
lcuff 3y ago
I'm curious about what topics you have knowledge of where it's failed. Does it seem like there's a pattern to the failures? I've been using GPT for coding help, and it it is very helpful in ruby and bash, though it often delivers buggy software: Badly handled non-happy-path conditions, mostly, which when I tell it to handle the case, it may. It's a huge help for me finding gems and showing me standard ruby library syntax. On the other hand, it's been useless when I try to get it to write Applescript for me. I believe that says more about AppleScript than about GPT. Sigh.
- notamy 3y ago
  > Does it seem like there's a pattern to the failures? Personally, trying to use it to write code (primarily Elixir backend and Rust systems/CLI), I tend to run into: - Hallucinating APIs that don't exist - Hallucinating entire libraries, despite being told repeatedly they don't exist - Saying it will make requested changes and not doing so - Not being anywhere close to idiomatic code - Not being able to explain code it writes - Running out of "memory" (I can't remember the right term. Context?) in the middle of generating code, then telling me I never prompted it when I ask it to continue On the other hand, I've found that it's good at cleaning up ugly data. I can copy/paste in a table with bad formatting, ask it to turn it into code, and it does it near-perfectly. That's been the best use-case for it I've found so far. I use boring normal free ChatGPT so maybe it's on me for not using GPT-4 or some other model, but either way, imo it's not been very impressive in the problem spaces I find myself in.
  - mrtranscendence 3y ago
    > Not being able to explain code it writes I've actually found it (ChatGPT-4) reasonably good at explaining other people's code, for what it's worth. It does require providing some context for the code it's explaining. ("This function is part of library X that does Y, and it seems to be about Z. I can't figure out the purpose of the loop in the middle, though. Can you explain it?") I'm with you on it writing code, though. It makes things up too frequently to be really useful.
  - simonw 3y ago
LASR 3y ago
I want to use this comment to state one thing, not directly addressed to you. Stop using GPT as a database! GPT is far more useful a reasoning engine that can accumulate fuzzy data and then provide various views or transformation of that data. So asking GPT to parse a Wikipedia page and then asking it to teach you from it - this is a much more successful usage than what the author in the original article is doing. It is not useful as an accurate source of information. It’s inaccurate sometimes, and it’s hard to tell when. OTOH, as a formatted, it has some actual world-changing potential.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  Is it? I couldn't even get it to figure out an NGINX config, despite feeding it the documentation and URL rewrites it would need, and the prior Apache .htaccess file. Spent days on it. Consulted with people who know more than me about prompt engineering. Nope. Reasoning is not its strong point, IMO. It's a next-word prediction model, why would it be? It's doing what an LLM does. Frequently, nonsensically.
  - LASR 3y ago
    Interesting. Curious as to what specific task you gave it and how it failed. My team has been working on several advanced techniques using reasoning on LLMs. The stacked performance of all of these techniques combined yields is quite impressive.
  - andai 3y ago
    GPT-3 or 4? Re: reasoning, apparently it gives much better performance if you ask it to write out its thought process step by step (because it has no "internal" thought process; it must be externalized).
    - simonw 3y ago
      Yeah, that sounds like a GPT-3.5 problem to me. I wouldn't trust 3.5 to write me an Nginx config, but I'd give 4 a shot at it. I just tried using GPT-4 to translate a random htaccess file I found to nginx and it seemed to do a good initial job: https://gist.github.com/simonw/8174f653a0c08c120830c56332054ca3 https://gist.github.com/simonw/8174f653a0c08c120830c56332054...
catgpt23 3y ago
[flagged]
- midasuni 3y ago
  > Cross-referencing multiple sources can help ensure that the information we consume is accurate. Not when they are all based on the same Wikipedia article
  - jimsimmons 3y ago
    GP looks ChatGPT generated
underdeserver 3y ago
Gell-Mann amnesia, in AI form. Wonderful! It's like learning a complex topic from reading the newspaper.
somethoughts 3y ago
As a follow on to those thoughts, I feel like ChatGPT is in the phase similar to that fleeting moment when search engines were maximally useable - before SEO was a thing and before Google "needed" to turn on the profitability spigot. Its unclear to me how long we'll have before LLM Engine Optimization is a thing and OpenAI/MSFT "need" to turn on their LLM profitability spigot; and what ChatGPT will look like then. That said, I'm curious as to whether technically LLMs are inherently more challenging to game than search engines.
- danielbln 3y ago
  A big benefit is that there are already plenty ok-ish open source LLMs out there that you can hook up to various information sources. Even if OpenAI flips the ad switch tomorrow, you can still run those by yourself. We didn't really have that option with search engines.
- enlyth 3y ago
  I actually don't mind paying the $20/mo or whatever if it means no ads, hopefully this turns out to be a viable business model for them. Also, first company with an uncensored LLM that doesn't reply "As an AI language model" will get my money.
  - blibble 3y ago
    why have no ads when you can plaster it with ads and also charge $20? see: windows 11
    - dividedbyzero 3y ago
      Would LLMs even have to be plastered with ads? I suspect just being subtly biased would go a very long way and be very hard to detect.
      - mrtranscendence 3y ago
        Introducing subtle bias for any advertiser that buys ads might be a tough nut to crack. For one thing, advertisers and the companies that employ them tend to want creative control over their ads. And it's not clear that a subtle bias towards Palmolive liquid detergent would even do anything in a discussion about veterinary care for ferrets (or whatever), so would the advertiser have to pay for that? Or would they only pay if the user clicked on a link? But if the user has to click on a link, then it's no longer subtle bias. Edit: Perhaps Colgate-Palmolive could advertise Palmolive on ChatGPT by having it so that, anytime liquid dish detergent does come up naturally in conversation, then the chatbot subtly points to Palmolive brand. But success here would be hard to measure.
gumballindie 3y ago
> I wish we could go back to having search engines that actually led to useful information and not just advertisements, and I wish we had a GPT that would not tell lies. This ^. Prompting google is much more intuitive than prompting a chat bot. Also results are instantly available and you get more options to chose from. You can also filter out information much easier instead of having it summarised by a closed box that decides what's best for you.
- throwaway2990 3y ago
  Except ChatGPT often gives better more accurate answers than Google without the bias of a single web page.
  - ziml77 3y ago
    Instead you get arbitrary bias without multiple sources you can check. If there is a shitty source that comes up in a normal web search, I can skip it and go to the ones I know are better. How do I do something similar with ChatGPT? Am I supposed to ask it multiple times to average the randomness that's applied to the conversation? Is the average even what I want? There's a ton of garbage information on the internet. If it outweighs the good information on a certain topic, isn't ChatGPT on average going to be giving me bad info?
    - Capricorn2481 3y ago
      Same. Frequently the context gets screwed up and I need to start a new conversation because ChatGPT gets so far up its bum
    - throwaway2990 3y ago
      If 100 people write about a topic. And 2 of those people are wrong. And you searched and for some reason the SE ranked one of those 2 higher. How will you know or spot incorrect information or bias? If the information on ChatGPT is averaged out the chance of it being correct is high. If you ask questions with bias in them you can sway the results of ChatGPT. That just means to me you’re asking the wrong questions. In terms of devops. Programming. Configuration. Daily tasks. Generalised workflows. How-tos. Etc. ChatGPT will more than likely give you accurate results that are useful, or pretty damn close. Obviously with information being limited to 2021 then it can be hard to find some solutions. I needed to do something with named pipes in c# that I couldn’t get working in .net 6. The examples it kept giving me were for .net core 3.1, or .net framework. When I asked specifically about .net 5 (since it doesn’t know .net 6 is released or that 7 exists) it apologised and said the code won’t work in 5 and gave me a working example in .net 5. Which identified that there was an api change I wasn’t aware of. No amount of googling found a solution for me.
throwaway2990 3y ago
[flagged]
- mrtranscendence 3y ago
  > Every time someone claims ChatGPT doesn’t work they cannot give concrete examples. So I don’t believe you sorry. Are you implying that ChatGPT always works, and that every time someone says it didn't work, they're lying? This feels like a joke to me. The other day it gave me the wrong code to compute indices for a Delta table, possibly because that capability didn't exist in the library it was using when the model was trained (though it shouldn't have made something up in that case). There, you have an example.
  - throwaway2990 3y ago
    Lol I’m not sure you understand what an example is.
    - mrtranscendence 3y ago
      OK, tell me what an example is, if not a description of something that lends -- or removes -- credence toward a position. And I do want to know if you think GPT-4 is actually incapable of making mistakes, because that's what you seem to be implying (even though it's flatly ridiculous).
      - throwaway2990 3y ago
        And your “example” wasn’t even close to that. No one can deduce anything from it and attempt to reproduce the problem to see where it failed. You basically wrote “I asked for white and the mail was grape juice is the best!” What can anyone do with that? Nothing. It’s meaningless. This is why open source projects hate people who raise issues because they are like “error happened fix it” and say nothing more then get upset when the issue is closed.
        3y ago

by devjab 3y ago

thsbrown 3y ago

Just out of curiosity are you using got 4 or 3.5?

userbinator 3y ago

It's become hard, and will become harder, precisely because of things like GPT (unintentionally) spreading misinformation. I'm against censorship in general, and this is no exception, but I do hope it leads to people becoming more critical of what they consume. However, I suspect that instead we will unfortunately see the continued cycle of creating large masses of people "educated" on such widely-propagated half-truths, while only a tiny subset of the population will have the actual truth.

brokencode 3y ago
The internet is a misinformation spreading machine. GPT is new and will surely improve over time, but I can’t say the same for the internet. In an ideal world, people would learn only from high quality sources like books and schools. But a shocking amount of people learn mostly through social media and whatever they find on Google. I think LLMs will provide a better alternative.
- vanviegen 3y ago
  Exactly! LLMs will be able/are able to construct their answers not just based on one Reddit comment they found somewhere, but on "all* comments as well as more reliable sources, such as the actual source code for the thing under discussion, scientific debate, (case) law texts, books, etc. They already seem somewhat capable of weighing source reliability.

forrestthewoods 3y ago

> On the other hand I've seen GPT fail so miserably at topics that I'm knowledge about that I have a very hard time trusting anything it tells me. ChatGPT’s current super power is helping people get from 0-to-1 on a new topic. In particular if that topic is adjacent to or a different niche with your expertise. It’s not currently amazing at taking someone from intermediate to advanced knowledge. At least in my experience. If I’m using a new library/framework/API for the first time it’s amazing at answering the endless newbie questions I have.

Gigachad 3y ago

I've been using ChatGPT as a brainstorming tool rather than just relying on it for specific examples. Stuff like asking it for some ideas for things to learn on a topic.

simonw 3y ago

"I'm not sure what the answer really is, but I'm not sure it's GPT." My suggestion is to stick with it and get a feel for what it's good at. I've found that after a few months of using ChatGPT every day I've developed a pretty solid intuition for which questions are likely to get good answers and which are likely to trigger hallucinations. It's difficult to describe what those intuitions are though! One rule of thumb I've developed: if something is likely to be "common knowledge" - if it's something that is likely to have been discussed accurately on the internet by many different people - then ChatGPT is very likely to answer questions about it accurately.

themodelplumber 3y ago
> then ChatGPT is very likely to answer questions about it accurately. Uh, and sooo boringly, especially if there's even any tiny part of it that is developing or theoretical, and you want to learn about that part. I've used the phrase/request "more obscure (perspectives/explanations/etc)" with GPT so many times. (Try it, you might be surprised at alternative takes on things, takes which are not even necessarily conspiracy theories and such) ...Which has made me think: Maybe life is more boring, the more one thinks there are just really good one-and-done answers to most everything.
- simonw 3y ago
  Yeah, there are so many fun ways you can make it more interesting. One of my favourite is to ask it to explain with analogies. The other day I was digging into the attention mechanism used to train LLMs, so I asked it: "Explain queries, keys, and values in the context of LLM attention using analogies from Terry Pratchett's Discworld" I find sometimes I get some real gems out of this that help me remember things much more effectively than just reading the basic explanation. (In case anyone's curious I ran that just now and got the following: https://gist.github.com/simonw/777b1d19f36beb39fb4216a0238fec13 https://gist.github.com/simonw/777b1d19f36beb39fb4216a0238fe... )
- barrysteve 3y ago
  Jonathan Blow is spending up to a decade on a new programming language to get away from c++. Most everything has been covered in logical extensions of concepts started in the 80s-90s. Those products aren't good for our.. Ah there's no point commenting here anymore. HN is so blinkered in it's thinking. The feeling of flying high on lofty concepts and pretending to get a bird's eye view of tech is no longer worth the squeeze. The thought patterns here are predictable like slashdot. I don't belong here. Bye.

lcuff 3y ago

I'm curious about what topics you have knowledge of where it's failed. Does it seem like there's a pattern to the failures? I've been using GPT for coding help, and it it is very helpful in ruby and bash, though it often delivers buggy software: Badly handled non-happy-path conditions, mostly, which when I tell it to handle the case, it may. It's a huge help for me finding gems and showing me standard ruby library syntax. On the other hand, it's been useless when I try to get it to write Applescript for me. I believe that says more about AppleScript than about GPT. Sigh.

notamy 3y ago
> Does it seem like there's a pattern to the failures? Personally, trying to use it to write code (primarily Elixir backend and Rust systems/CLI), I tend to run into: - Hallucinating APIs that don't exist - Hallucinating entire libraries, despite being told repeatedly they don't exist - Saying it will make requested changes and not doing so - Not being anywhere close to idiomatic code - Not being able to explain code it writes - Running out of "memory" (I can't remember the right term. Context?) in the middle of generating code, then telling me I never prompted it when I ask it to continue On the other hand, I've found that it's good at cleaning up ugly data. I can copy/paste in a table with bad formatting, ask it to turn it into code, and it does it near-perfectly. That's been the best use-case for it I've found so far. I use boring normal free ChatGPT so maybe it's on me for not using GPT-4 or some other model, but either way, imo it's not been very impressive in the problem spaces I find myself in.
- mrtranscendence 3y ago
  > Not being able to explain code it writes I've actually found it (ChatGPT-4) reasonably good at explaining other people's code, for what it's worth. It does require providing some context for the code it's explaining. ("This function is part of library X that does Y, and it seems to be about Z. I can't figure out the purpose of the loop in the middle, though. Can you explain it?") I'm with you on it writing code, though. It makes things up too frequently to be really useful.
- simonw 3y ago

LASR 3y ago

I want to use this comment to state one thing, not directly addressed to you. Stop using GPT as a database! GPT is far more useful a reasoning engine that can accumulate fuzzy data and then provide various views or transformation of that data. So asking GPT to parse a Wikipedia page and then asking it to teach you from it - this is a much more successful usage than what the author in the original article is doing. It is not useful as an accurate source of information. It’s inaccurate sometimes, and it’s hard to tell when. OTOH, as a formatted, it has some actual world-changing potential.

hammyhavoc 3y ago
Is it? I couldn't even get it to figure out an NGINX config, despite feeding it the documentation and URL rewrites it would need, and the prior Apache .htaccess file. Spent days on it. Consulted with people who know more than me about prompt engineering. Nope. Reasoning is not its strong point, IMO. It's a next-word prediction model, why would it be? It's doing what an LLM does. Frequently, nonsensically.
- LASR 3y ago
  Interesting. Curious as to what specific task you gave it and how it failed. My team has been working on several advanced techniques using reasoning on LLMs. The stacked performance of all of these techniques combined yields is quite impressive.
- andai 3y ago
  GPT-3 or 4? Re: reasoning, apparently it gives much better performance if you ask it to write out its thought process step by step (because it has no "internal" thought process; it must be externalized).
  - simonw 3y ago
    Yeah, that sounds like a GPT-3.5 problem to me. I wouldn't trust 3.5 to write me an Nginx config, but I'd give 4 a shot at it. I just tried using GPT-4 to translate a random htaccess file I found to nginx and it seemed to do a good initial job: https://gist.github.com/simonw/8174f653a0c08c120830c56332054ca3 https://gist.github.com/simonw/8174f653a0c08c120830c56332054...

catgpt23 3y ago

[flagged]

midasuni 3y ago
> Cross-referencing multiple sources can help ensure that the information we consume is accurate. Not when they are all based on the same Wikipedia article
- jimsimmons 3y ago
  GP looks ChatGPT generated

underdeserver 3y ago

Gell-Mann amnesia, in AI form. Wonderful! It's like learning a complex topic from reading the newspaper.

somethoughts 3y ago

As a follow on to those thoughts, I feel like ChatGPT is in the phase similar to that fleeting moment when search engines were maximally useable - before SEO was a thing and before Google "needed" to turn on the profitability spigot. Its unclear to me how long we'll have before LLM Engine Optimization is a thing and OpenAI/MSFT "need" to turn on their LLM profitability spigot; and what ChatGPT will look like then. That said, I'm curious as to whether technically LLMs are inherently more challenging to game than search engines.

danielbln 3y ago
A big benefit is that there are already plenty ok-ish open source LLMs out there that you can hook up to various information sources. Even if OpenAI flips the ad switch tomorrow, you can still run those by yourself. We didn't really have that option with search engines.
enlyth 3y ago
I actually don't mind paying the $20/mo or whatever if it means no ads, hopefully this turns out to be a viable business model for them. Also, first company with an uncensored LLM that doesn't reply "As an AI language model" will get my money.
- blibble 3y ago
  why have no ads when you can plaster it with ads and also charge $20? see: windows 11
  - dividedbyzero 3y ago
    Would LLMs even have to be plastered with ads? I suspect just being subtly biased would go a very long way and be very hard to detect.
    - mrtranscendence 3y ago
      Introducing subtle bias for any advertiser that buys ads might be a tough nut to crack. For one thing, advertisers and the companies that employ them tend to want creative control over their ads. And it's not clear that a subtle bias towards Palmolive liquid detergent would even do anything in a discussion about veterinary care for ferrets (or whatever), so would the advertiser have to pay for that? Or would they only pay if the user clicked on a link? But if the user has to click on a link, then it's no longer subtle bias. Edit: Perhaps Colgate-Palmolive could advertise Palmolive on ChatGPT by having it so that, anytime liquid dish detergent does come up naturally in conversation, then the chatbot subtly points to Palmolive brand. But success here would be hard to measure.

gumballindie 3y ago

> I wish we could go back to having search engines that actually led to useful information and not just advertisements, and I wish we had a GPT that would not tell lies. This ^. Prompting google is much more intuitive than prompting a chat bot. Also results are instantly available and you get more options to chose from. You can also filter out information much easier instead of having it summarised by a closed box that decides what's best for you.

throwaway2990 3y ago
Except ChatGPT often gives better more accurate answers than Google without the bias of a single web page.
- ziml77 3y ago
  Instead you get arbitrary bias without multiple sources you can check. If there is a shitty source that comes up in a normal web search, I can skip it and go to the ones I know are better. How do I do something similar with ChatGPT? Am I supposed to ask it multiple times to average the randomness that's applied to the conversation? Is the average even what I want? There's a ton of garbage information on the internet. If it outweighs the good information on a certain topic, isn't ChatGPT on average going to be giving me bad info?
  - Capricorn2481 3y ago
    Same. Frequently the context gets screwed up and I need to start a new conversation because ChatGPT gets so far up its bum
  - throwaway2990 3y ago
    If 100 people write about a topic. And 2 of those people are wrong. And you searched and for some reason the SE ranked one of those 2 higher. How will you know or spot incorrect information or bias? If the information on ChatGPT is averaged out the chance of it being correct is high. If you ask questions with bias in them you can sway the results of ChatGPT. That just means to me you’re asking the wrong questions. In terms of devops. Programming. Configuration. Daily tasks. Generalised workflows. How-tos. Etc. ChatGPT will more than likely give you accurate results that are useful, or pretty damn close. Obviously with information being limited to 2021 then it can be hard to find some solutions. I needed to do something with named pipes in c# that I couldn’t get working in .net 6. The examples it kept giving me were for .net core 3.1, or .net framework. When I asked specifically about .net 5 (since it doesn’t know .net 6 is released or that 7 exists) it apologised and said the code won’t work in 5 and gave me a working example in .net 5. Which identified that there was an api change I wasn’t aware of. No amount of googling found a solution for me.

throwaway2990 3y ago

[flagged]

mrtranscendence 3y ago
> Every time someone claims ChatGPT doesn’t work they cannot give concrete examples. So I don’t believe you sorry. Are you implying that ChatGPT always works, and that every time someone says it didn't work, they're lying? This feels like a joke to me. The other day it gave me the wrong code to compute indices for a Delta table, possibly because that capability didn't exist in the library it was using when the model was trained (though it shouldn't have made something up in that case). There, you have an example.
- throwaway2990 3y ago
  Lol I’m not sure you understand what an example is.
  - mrtranscendence 3y ago
    OK, tell me what an example is, if not a description of something that lends -- or removes -- credence toward a position. And I do want to know if you think GPT-4 is actually incapable of making mistakes, because that's what you seem to be implying (even though it's flatly ridiculous).
    - throwaway2990 3y ago
      And your “example” wasn’t even close to that. No one can deduce anything from it and attempt to reproduce the problem to see where it failed. You basically wrote “I asked for white and the mail was grape juice is the best!” What can anyone do with that? Nothing. It’s meaningless. This is why open source projects hate people who raise issues because they are like “error happened fix it” and say nothing more then get upset when the issue is closed.
      - 3y ago