3 ms·

So much this. The thing hallucinates far more than the hyperventilation seems willing to acknowledge. You really need to be quite competent in the thing you're

So much this. The thing hallucinates far more than the hyperventilation seems willing to acknowledge. You really need to be quite competent in the thing you're asking it to do in order to ferret out the hallucinations, which greatly diminishes the potency of GPT in the hands of someone who has no knowledge of the relevant language/runtime/problem domain/etc.

fomine3 3y ago
Hallucination is less a problem for programming compared to other use case, because finally program must be run.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  It's a huge problem on many levels, but in this case it so much more time intensive. Diminishing it's use.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  I had my colleague had troubles getting an email from Google docs into listmonk. She asked gpt to help get an html version since apparently she got stuck with the wysiwg editor. However gpt gave back a full html structure, including head and body. Pasting that into listmonk breaks entire webpage. Then she freaked out and told me listmonk sucks :)
- abalashov 3y ago
  Not if the hallucination introduces runtime errors that can't be identified a priori with any sort of static analysis or compilation/interpreting stage. But no, you're fundamentally right. It just goes to the question of whether an LLM assistant can in any sense replace or displace human programmers, or save time for human programmers. The answer seems to be somewhat, and in certain cases, but not much else. If I already know the technology I'm querying GPT about, I'm going to spend at least some time identifying its hallucinations or realising that it introduced some. I might have been better off just doing it myself. If I don't know the technology I'm querying GPT about, I'm going to be impacted by its hallucinations but will also have to spend time figuring out what the hallucinations are and why this unfamiliar code sample doesn't work.
arrowsmith 3y ago
Try paying for GPT-4 - it barely hallucinates at all, at least as far as I've noticed.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  I use GPT-4 it for sure does if you do a bit different things off the beaten path

fomine3 3y ago

Hallucination is less a problem for programming compared to other use case, because finally program must be run.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
It's a huge problem on many levels, but in this case it so much more time intensive. Diminishing it's use.
wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
I had my colleague had troubles getting an email from Google docs into listmonk. She asked gpt to help get an html version since apparently she got stuck with the wysiwg editor. However gpt gave back a full html structure, including head and body. Pasting that into listmonk breaks entire webpage. Then she freaked out and told me listmonk sucks :)
abalashov 3y ago
Not if the hallucination introduces runtime errors that can't be identified a priori with any sort of static analysis or compilation/interpreting stage. But no, you're fundamentally right. It just goes to the question of whether an LLM assistant can in any sense replace or displace human programmers, or save time for human programmers. The answer seems to be somewhat, and in certain cases, but not much else. If I already know the technology I'm querying GPT about, I'm going to spend at least some time identifying its hallucinations or realising that it introduced some. I might have been better off just doing it myself. If I don't know the technology I'm querying GPT about, I'm going to be impacted by its hallucinations but will also have to spend time figuring out what the hallucinations are and why this unfamiliar code sample doesn't work.

arrowsmith 3y ago

Try paying for GPT-4 - it barely hallucinates at all, at least as far as I've noticed.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
I use GPT-4 it for sure does if you do a bit different things off the beaten path