6 ms·

It has a tendency to do: "// ... the rest of your code goes here" in it's responses, rather than writing it all out.

by Me1000 3y ago

asaddhamani 3y ago
It's incredibly lazy. I've tried to coax it into returning the full code and it will claim to follow the instructions while regurgitating the same output you complained about. GPT-4 was great, GPT-4 Turbo first version was pretty terrible bordering on unusable, then they came out with the Turbo second version, which almost feels worse to me, though I haven't compared, but if someone comes claiming they fixed an issue, but you still see it, it will bias you to see it more. Claude is doing much better in this area, local/open LLMs are getting quite good, it feels like OpenAI is not heading in a good direction here, and I hope they course correct.
- mistermann 3y ago
  I have a feeling full powered LLM's are reserved for the more equal animals. I hope some people remember and document details of this era, future generations may be so impressed with future reality that they may not even think to question it's fidelity, if that concept even exists in the future.
  - akdor1154 3y ago
    > I hope some people remember and document details of this era, future generations may be so impressed with future reality that they may not even think to question it's fidelity, if that concept even exists in the future. The former sounds like a great training set to enable the latter. :(
  - bbor 3y ago
    …could you clarify? Is this about “LLMs can be biased, thus making fake news a bigger problem”?
    - mistermann 3y ago
      I confidently predict that we sheep will not have access to the same power our shepherds will have.
    - _puk 3y ago
      Imagine if the first version of ChatGPT we all saw was fully sanitised.. We know it knows how to make gunpowder (for example), but only because it would initially tell us. Now it won't without a lot of trickery. Would we even be pushing to try and trick it into doing so if we didn't know it actually could?
      - ForHackernews 3y ago
        > Would we even be pushing to try and trick it into doing so if we didn't know it actually could? Would somebody try to push a technical system to do things it wasn't necessarily designed to be capable of? Uh... yes. You're asking this question on _Hacker_ News?
      - bbor 3y ago
        Ah so it’s more about “forbidden knowledge” than “fake news” makes sense. I don’t personally see as that toooo much of an issue since other sources still exist, eg Wikipedia, internet archive, libraries, or that one Minecraft Library of Alexandria project. So I see knowledge storage staying there and LLMs staying put in the interpretation/transformation role, for the foreseeable future. But obviously all that social infrastructure is fragile… so you’re not wrong to be alarmed, IMO
        antupis 3y ago
        It is not that much about censorship, even that would be somewhat fine if OpenAI would do it dataset level so chatgpt would not have any knowledge about bomb-making. But it is happening lazily so system prompts get bigger which makes a signal to noise worse etc. I don't care about racial bias or what to call pope when I want chatgpt to write Python code.
        3y ago
- kruxigt 3y ago
  [dead]
- 15457345234 3y ago
  People need to be using their local machines for this. Because otherwise the result is going to be a cloud service provider having literally everyone's business logic somewhere in their system and that goes wrong real quick.
bbor 3y ago
It’s so interesting to see this discussion. I think this is a matter of “more experienced coders like and expect and reward that kind of output, while less experienced ones want very explicit responses”. So there’s this huge LLM Laziness epidemic that half the users cant even see
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  I'm paying for ChatGPT GPT4 to complete extremely tedious, repetitive coding tasks. The newly occurring laziness directly, negatively impacts my day to day use where I'm now willing to try alternatives. I still think I get value - indeed I'd probably pay $1,000/mo instead of $20/mo - but I'm only going to pay for one service.
moffkalast 3y ago
I mean, isn't that better as long as it actually writes the part that was asked? Who wants to wait for it to sluggishly generate the entire script for the 5th time and then copy the entire thing yet again.

It has a tendency to do: "// ... the rest of your code goes here" in it's responses, rather than writing it all out.

by Me1000 3y ago

It has a tendency to do: "// ... the rest of your code goes here" in it's responses, rather than writing it all out.

It's incredibly lazy. I've tried to coax it into returning the full code and it will claim to follow the instructions while regurgitating the same output you complained about. GPT-4 was great, GPT-4 Turbo first version was pretty terrible bordering on unusable, then they came out with the Turbo second version, which almost feels worse to me, though I haven't compared, but if someone comes claiming they fixed an issue, but you still see it, it will bias you to see it more. Claude is doing much better in this area, local/open LLMs are getting quite good, it feels like OpenAI is not heading in a good direction here, and I hope they course correct.

mistermann 3y ago
I have a feeling full powered LLM's are reserved for the more equal animals. I hope some people remember and document details of this era, future generations may be so impressed with future reality that they may not even think to question it's fidelity, if that concept even exists in the future.
- akdor1154 3y ago
  > I hope some people remember and document details of this era, future generations may be so impressed with future reality that they may not even think to question it's fidelity, if that concept even exists in the future. The former sounds like a great training set to enable the latter. :(
- bbor 3y ago
  …could you clarify? Is this about “LLMs can be biased, thus making fake news a bigger problem”?
  - mistermann 3y ago
    I confidently predict that we sheep will not have access to the same power our shepherds will have.
  - _puk 3y ago
    Imagine if the first version of ChatGPT we all saw was fully sanitised.. We know it knows how to make gunpowder (for example), but only because it would initially tell us. Now it won't without a lot of trickery. Would we even be pushing to try and trick it into doing so if we didn't know it actually could?
    - ForHackernews 3y ago
      > Would we even be pushing to try and trick it into doing so if we didn't know it actually could? Would somebody try to push a technical system to do things it wasn't necessarily designed to be capable of? Uh... yes. You're asking this question on _Hacker_ News?
    - bbor 3y ago
      Ah so it’s more about “forbidden knowledge” than “fake news” makes sense. I don’t personally see as that toooo much of an issue since other sources still exist, eg Wikipedia, internet archive, libraries, or that one Minecraft Library of Alexandria project. So I see knowledge storage staying there and LLMs staying put in the interpretation/transformation role, for the foreseeable future. But obviously all that social infrastructure is fragile… so you’re not wrong to be alarmed, IMO
      - antupis 3y ago
        It is not that much about censorship, even that would be somewhat fine if OpenAI would do it dataset level so chatgpt would not have any knowledge about bomb-making. But it is happening lazily so system prompts get bigger which makes a signal to noise worse etc. I don't care about racial bias or what to call pope when I want chatgpt to write Python code.
        3y ago
kruxigt 3y ago
[dead]
15457345234 3y ago
People need to be using their local machines for this. Because otherwise the result is going to be a cloud service provider having literally everyone's business logic somewhere in their system and that goes wrong real quick.

bbor 3y ago

It’s so interesting to see this discussion. I think this is a matter of “more experienced coders like and expect and reward that kind of output, while less experienced ones want very explicit responses”. So there’s this huge LLM Laziness epidemic that half the users cant even see

doctorpangloss 3y ago
I'm paying for ChatGPT GPT4 to complete extremely tedious, repetitive coding tasks. The newly occurring laziness directly, negatively impacts my day to day use where I'm now willing to try alternatives. I still think I get value - indeed I'd probably pay $1,000/mo instead of $20/mo - but I'm only going to pay for one service.

moffkalast 3y ago

I mean, isn't that better as long as it actually writes the part that was asked? Who wants to wait for it to sluggishly generate the entire script for the 5th time and then copy the entire thing yet again.