6 ms·

I use it almost on a daily basis now, and I pay for the monthly subscription. It’s not magic, but it can save me a lot of time sometimes. I use it in my job as

I use it almost on a daily basis now, and I pay for the monthly subscription. It’s not magic, but it can save me a lot of time sometimes. I use it in my job as a software engineer, and I mostly use it to create unit tests. The code usually needs a lot of love, but it gets me started.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
Copilot and chatgpt are some of the services i am perfectly content paying for. ChatGPT is a great way to delve into new topics, and for that alone it’s worth it.
- dpflan 3y ago
  Copilot Chat will probably be something you’ll like. Have you used it? There is a waitlist. https://github.com/github-copilot/chat_waitlist_signup/join https://github.com/github-copilot/chat_waitlist_signup/join
  - asimjalis 3y ago
    “Admission to the private beta for GitHub Copilot chat is limited and requires an active subscription to GitHub Copilot. Signing up does not guarantee access.“
- twelve40 3y ago
  > ChatGPT is a great way to delve into new topics Like bears in space? ))) seems like a great way to delve into known topics so that you are able to catch it when it starts to confidently and plausibly hallucinate
  - throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
    And we should blindly trust anything you read on the internet written by a real person? It's still valuable as a "search engine" with a different interface, especially if you can describe the problem but don't know the words to search for. For me that's a common issue when jumping into a new space.
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      At least there is usually a comments section on websites where people can call out bullshit. If you're not an expert in your field, GPT will successfully lie to you. There's no second opinion. Rather than a feelings filter, it needs an integrity filter.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        There is a trend now of not having a comment section because it reduces server overhead by being able to serve a completely static page, and also directs the outrage and moderation required for it to social media, thus driving further traffic and reducing work required to deal with the fallout of it. LLMs don't lie, that implies they have intent and is giving too much credibility to the idea that AGI may happen. They get things wrong because it's trying to use the wrong tool for the task at hand. It's a next word prediction engine, and that's not very useful for most things. By their very nature, they "hallucinate", but they don't really hallucinate, they just give the wrong output because it is just an LLM.
        jstarfish 3y ago
        Fraud requires intent. Lying is behavioral. Pathological liars don't intend to deceive. They can't seem to stop themselves. They literally hallucinate events even when presented with evidence to the contrary and we still call them liars. A "hallucination engine" presented as a source of truth is fundamentally dishonest. We don't go to fortune-tellers when we need legal advice. We don't learn law from reading every Matlock script ever written. A human hallucinating behind the wheel and plowing into traffic gets jail and a license suspension. An AI doing the same gets a press release about FSD being right around the corner. This tech is literally replacing humans (by abstraction of the responsibilities they assume). It needs to be held accountable as one even if it's not technically AGI (or wherever the goalposts are being moved to next). But our continued faith in tech as a growth industry depends on it not being perceived as a lie, so we must keep up the illusion that your car is just suffering from cyberpsychosis when it hallucinates and drives you off a cliff.
    - 3y ago
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    Basically I described the problem I am trying to solve; I ask it to behave as a seasoned professor of comp sci or w/e depending on my hunch, we go back and forth where I ask questions, add constraints to the system, and in turn it gives me ideas into what I should look into more. It's the Socratic method on steroids, where the student is probing a possibly fallible professor with the library of Alexandria at their hands. It is by no means perfect, but it allows me to identify what general field I am going into, what I should read about it, what core concepts are important, how to expand my knowledge, and most importantly, helps me better formulate the problem by asking questions or failing to understand what I want to convey.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      Who tf downvotes something like this? By all means, HN has lost it.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Curious if you've queried ChatGPT on topics that are not new to you and been impressed with its conveyance of relevant information? I think there's value here, but I also think people are way overestimating the quality of the "knowledge" they think they're receiving from it on novel topics.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    The topics that are not new to me and are of interest come up after its training-dataset-cutoff, thus it can produce bogus information. I think ChatGPT and the likes should be thought of as cartographers who when probed can provide an outline of regions of the knowledge space and give hints as to what could be useful. Given then a high level but also imprecise map, I can ask the GPS for clarity as to where I am going. The problem is that I often don't know where that is and thus I don't know what to ask from the GPS, but I can describe it to the cartographer, and they can draw a map for me. In this analogy, the GPS is search engines / books / papers.
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    No, it's objectively shit for a lot of things. The more technical and abstract something is in its concepts, the worse it becomes. It is just an LLM and that means it is inappropriate by its very nature for most things.
- hecksideci_1 3y ago
  ChatGPT uses the word "delve" a lot. If it wasn't for the lowercase "i" in your message, I would have been skeptical that this was a message generated by chatGPT. Perhaps your speech tendencies are merging with those of ChatGPT. Before too long your independent thoughts and writings may accidentally be flagged by GPT detectors, haha.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

Copilot and chatgpt are some of the services i am perfectly content paying for. ChatGPT is a great way to delve into new topics, and for that alone it’s worth it.

dpflan 3y ago
Copilot Chat will probably be something you’ll like. Have you used it? There is a waitlist. https://github.com/github-copilot/chat_waitlist_signup/join https://github.com/github-copilot/chat_waitlist_signup/join
- asimjalis 3y ago
  “Admission to the private beta for GitHub Copilot chat is limited and requires an active subscription to GitHub Copilot. Signing up does not guarantee access.“
twelve40 3y ago
> ChatGPT is a great way to delve into new topics Like bears in space? ))) seems like a great way to delve into known topics so that you are able to catch it when it starts to confidently and plausibly hallucinate
- throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
  And we should blindly trust anything you read on the internet written by a real person? It's still valuable as a "search engine" with a different interface, especially if you can describe the problem but don't know the words to search for. For me that's a common issue when jumping into a new space.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    At least there is usually a comments section on websites where people can call out bullshit. If you're not an expert in your field, GPT will successfully lie to you. There's no second opinion. Rather than a feelings filter, it needs an integrity filter.
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      There is a trend now of not having a comment section because it reduces server overhead by being able to serve a completely static page, and also directs the outrage and moderation required for it to social media, thus driving further traffic and reducing work required to deal with the fallout of it. LLMs don't lie, that implies they have intent and is giving too much credibility to the idea that AGI may happen. They get things wrong because it's trying to use the wrong tool for the task at hand. It's a next word prediction engine, and that's not very useful for most things. By their very nature, they "hallucinate", but they don't really hallucinate, they just give the wrong output because it is just an LLM.
      - jstarfish 3y ago
        Fraud requires intent. Lying is behavioral. Pathological liars don't intend to deceive. They can't seem to stop themselves. They literally hallucinate events even when presented with evidence to the contrary and we still call them liars. A "hallucination engine" presented as a source of truth is fundamentally dishonest. We don't go to fortune-tellers when we need legal advice. We don't learn law from reading every Matlock script ever written. A human hallucinating behind the wheel and plowing into traffic gets jail and a license suspension. An AI doing the same gets a press release about FSD being right around the corner. This tech is literally replacing humans (by abstraction of the responsibilities they assume). It needs to be held accountable as one even if it's not technically AGI (or wherever the goalposts are being moved to next). But our continued faith in tech as a growth industry depends on it not being perceived as a lie, so we must keep up the illusion that your car is just suffering from cyberpsychosis when it hallucinates and drives you off a cliff.
  - 3y ago
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  Basically I described the problem I am trying to solve; I ask it to behave as a seasoned professor of comp sci or w/e depending on my hunch, we go back and forth where I ask questions, add constraints to the system, and in turn it gives me ideas into what I should look into more. It's the Socratic method on steroids, where the student is probing a possibly fallible professor with the library of Alexandria at their hands. It is by no means perfect, but it allows me to identify what general field I am going into, what I should read about it, what core concepts are important, how to expand my knowledge, and most importantly, helps me better formulate the problem by asking questions or failing to understand what I want to convey.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    Who tf downvotes something like this? By all means, HN has lost it.
ethanbond 3y ago
Curious if you've queried ChatGPT on topics that are not new to you and been impressed with its conveyance of relevant information? I think there's value here, but I also think people are way overestimating the quality of the "knowledge" they think they're receiving from it on novel topics.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  The topics that are not new to me and are of interest come up after its training-dataset-cutoff, thus it can produce bogus information. I think ChatGPT and the likes should be thought of as cartographers who when probed can provide an outline of regions of the knowledge space and give hints as to what could be useful. Given then a high level but also imprecise map, I can ask the GPS for clarity as to where I am going. The problem is that I often don't know where that is and thus I don't know what to ask from the GPS, but I can describe it to the cartographer, and they can draw a map for me. In this analogy, the GPS is search engines / books / papers.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  No, it's objectively shit for a lot of things. The more technical and abstract something is in its concepts, the worse it becomes. It is just an LLM and that means it is inappropriate by its very nature for most things.
hecksideci_1 3y ago
ChatGPT uses the word "delve" a lot. If it wasn't for the lowercase "i" in your message, I would have been skeptical that this was a message generated by chatGPT. Perhaps your speech tendencies are merging with those of ChatGPT. Before too long your independent thoughts and writings may accidentally be flagged by GPT detectors, haha.