5 ms·

I very much doubt the tweet in question is of someone who loved GPT-4 yesterday, and has "fallen out of love" with it starting today. For someone so dismissive

I very much doubt the tweet in question is of someone who loved GPT-4 yesterday, and has "fallen out of love" with it starting today. For someone so dismissive of "neurotypicals" you did the neurotypical thing and drop a hot take before clicking the link.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
It's more that the balance in usefulness vs waste of time shifts into the other direction after a few times spending long time getting it right and just doing it yourself anyway.
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  I've spent 20 years explaining my code to a rubber duck and getting great use out of that duck. No one will ever convince me that it's less useful now when the duck actually has read the Internet and has useful suggestions and ideas back to share. Even if it makes shit up on an occasion.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I don't know. The value of rubber-ducking is that you have to break the problem down into very simple terms to explain it. It's the explaining it part that is magic. That value goes away (or is greatly diminished) if the rubber duck responds with anything other than a request for further explanation.
    - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
      You have to break down a problem to GPT just like you would to a human, and if it misunderstands you or asks you, you'd have to elaborate just the same. It's modeled after us, after all. The rubber duck is a stand-in for a human. GPT also is. But just a vastly better one.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        Of course. The part I was responding to was this: > when the duck actually has read the Internet and has useful suggestions and ideas back to share I think that if it does that, it's legitimately less useful as a rubber duck. I'm not saying it isn't useful -- it's just not useful as a rubber duck anymore.
        vinnyvichy 3y ago
        Similarly, but not quite, I often find browsing new submits on HN more useful than simply going through the front page. Just because, uh, front page is decided by statistics, that is, the community's neurotypicals
PaulHoule 3y ago
The tweet is an OpenAI employee who is responding to people who have fallen out of love. I've seen transcripts of people interacting with ChatGPT who were obviously seduced by it and in a very giddy state, having so much fun because ChatGPT was playing an extended "game" with them that it didn't bother them at all that ChatGPT was spouting wrong answers. A major complaint I've had about the social sphere is that I seem to get the same result if I am 20% right or 50% right or 80% right or 95% right or 99.8%, it is just exhausting and I can never be good enough and I'm frankly envious that people see more of a glimmer of light behind that thing's "eyes" than they do behind mine. The core thing about neurotypicality isn't so much that they get the wrong answers but that they get the same answer whether it is right or wrong. For a long time I thought the basis of the "language instinct" is a derangement about reasoning with uncertainty that causes the grammar representation to collapse into a low-dimensioned subspace which is learnable with a limited amount of data. I wouldn't be surprised at all if other animals could beat us at rock-scissors-paper or poker if they could understand the rules of the game. The success of LLMs might give us some insight in this area although they are working with so much more data that Chomsky's old "poverty of the stimulus" argument might not apply.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago

It's more that the balance in usefulness vs waste of time shifts into the other direction after a few times spending long time getting it right and just doing it yourself anyway.

BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
I've spent 20 years explaining my code to a rubber duck and getting great use out of that duck. No one will ever convince me that it's less useful now when the duck actually has read the Internet and has useful suggestions and ideas back to share. Even if it makes shit up on an occasion.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I don't know. The value of rubber-ducking is that you have to break the problem down into very simple terms to explain it. It's the explaining it part that is magic. That value goes away (or is greatly diminished) if the rubber duck responds with anything other than a request for further explanation.
  - BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
    You have to break down a problem to GPT just like you would to a human, and if it misunderstands you or asks you, you'd have to elaborate just the same. It's modeled after us, after all. The rubber duck is a stand-in for a human. GPT also is. But just a vastly better one.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Of course. The part I was responding to was this: > when the duck actually has read the Internet and has useful suggestions and ideas back to share I think that if it does that, it's legitimately less useful as a rubber duck. I'm not saying it isn't useful -- it's just not useful as a rubber duck anymore.
      - vinnyvichy 3y ago
        Similarly, but not quite, I often find browsing new submits on HN more useful than simply going through the front page. Just because, uh, front page is decided by statistics, that is, the community's neurotypicals

PaulHoule 3y ago

The tweet is an OpenAI employee who is responding to people who have fallen out of love. I've seen transcripts of people interacting with ChatGPT who were obviously seduced by it and in a very giddy state, having so much fun because ChatGPT was playing an extended "game" with them that it didn't bother them at all that ChatGPT was spouting wrong answers. A major complaint I've had about the social sphere is that I seem to get the same result if I am 20% right or 50% right or 80% right or 95% right or 99.8%, it is just exhausting and I can never be good enough and I'm frankly envious that people see more of a glimmer of light behind that thing's "eyes" than they do behind mine. The core thing about neurotypicality isn't so much that they get the wrong answers but that they get the same answer whether it is right or wrong. For a long time I thought the basis of the "language instinct" is a derangement about reasoning with uncertainty that causes the grammar representation to collapse into a low-dimensioned subspace which is learnable with a limited amount of data. I wouldn't be surprised at all if other animals could beat us at rock-scissors-paper or poker if they could understand the rules of the game. The success of LLMs might give us some insight in this area although they are working with so much more data that Chomsky's old "poverty of the stimulus" argument might not apply.