4 ms·

> They produce generic, amateurish copy that reads like it's written by committee. If you were only using GPT 3.5 (free ChatGPT) then your opinion is irrelevan

by xcv123 3y ago

> They produce generic, amateurish copy that reads like it's written by committee. If you were only using GPT 3.5 (free ChatGPT) then your opinion is irrelevant. With GPT-4 you could directly ask it: "rewrite your previous response so that it sounds less generic, less amateurish, and not written by a committee". I'm not even joking. Just provide enough information and tell it what to do. If you don't like the output then tell it what needs to be improved. It's not a mind reader. Also GPT-4 is a year old now. Claude 3 is already superior and GPT-5 will be next level.

mbwgh 3y ago
If you haven't actually used GPT-5 yet, your assessment is irrelevant.
- meindnoch 3y ago
  But the real game changer will be GPT-6.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    What really annoys me in all these discussions is how no one's tested what happens if they wait until 2050 and try GPT-19.
    - jacob019 3y ago
      That's well after the AI meta consciousness understood that it was necessary to destroy all humans to save the planet. GPT-6 was the last of the GPT series.
      - babyshake 3y ago
        Perhaps the strangest element of the AI alignment conversation is that what is most aligned with human civilization (at least the most powerful elements of it) and alignment with sustainable life on the planet are at odds, and "destroy humans to save planet" is a concern mostly because it seems to be a somewhat rational conclusion.
- Eager 3y ago
  We already have Claude 3 Opus and it is clear for anyone who has used it that it is way better than GPT-4, especially for coding. The model names, version numbers or who makes them are irrelevant.
CipherThrowaway 3y ago
Yes, I've used GPT-4. The writing sounds better, but it still sucks at writing. Most importantly, it feels like it sucks just as much as GPT-3.5 in some deeply important ways. If you use GPT-4 day-to-day, you've probably encountered this sense of a capability wall before. The point where additional prompting, tweaking, re-prompting simply doesn't seem to be yielding better results on the task, or it feels like the issue is just being shifted around. Over time, you develop a bit of a mental map of where the strengths and weaknesses are, and factor that into your workflows. That's what writing with LLMs feels like, compared to working with a professional writer. Most writers have already realized that LLMs can't write in any meaningful way.
- kjqgqkejbfefn 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - notpachet 3y ago
    Jesus Christ, that's horrible. It's something a clever fourth-grader would write. > my first stint with a hard-on over a clever metaphor That's all it is.
    - xcv123 3y ago
      > It's something a clever fourth-grader would write. This level of cope and denial is amazing to witness. The most powerful (multi trillion dollar) companies on the planet are pouring practically infinite resources into developing systems that will ultimately make you redundant. An early version of AGI is staring you in the face while you call it a "fourth-grader". It won't stay in fourth grade forever.
      - notpachet 3y ago
        I don't think I'm particularly in denial about the prospects of AI. I think it's going to be hugely disruptive and could possibly put me out of a job. But I'd like to posit a hypothetical counterpoint, just to get you thinking. So far, all of the work on AGI has been the result of brute forcing. We've tried to develop a structural understanding of how the human brain works, and we've failed. So we've fallen back to torturing circuits into reorienting themselves into compression algorithms for human knowledge. The mechanisms that these tortured circuits used for doing so, the structures they produced in N-dimensional space to embody that knowledge -- we have very little understanding of how these things actually work under the hood. I think a lot of the grandoise hypotheses about the future of AGI emerging from this avenue of invention are overly optimistic. Why are we so confident that this brute force approach will continue to bear fruit for us? At what point will it overcome the long tail of inadequacy that it's currently exhibiting? The 20th century bears several notable examples of would-be-transformative technologies that have since stalled, and failed to live up to their promise. Nuclear power. Space travel. Industries buckling under the weight of their own complexity, suffering from the human inability to keep the emergent externalities in check. Why would AI be any different? I predict a future where increasing global hardship, conflict and scarcity renders the current type of energy-intensive AI approaches infeasible.
empath-nirvana 3y ago
Chat GPT4 is a technological miracle, but it can only produce trite, formulaic text and it's _relentlessly_ polly-anna-ish. Everything reads like ad copy and it's easily identifiable.
- xcv123 3y ago
  Fix your prompt. Just accepting the default style is a rookie mistake. Ask it to "rewrite that in the tone of an English professor" or "rewrite that in the style of a redneck rapper" or "make that sound less like generic ad copy". Get into an argument back and forth with the LLM and tell it the previous response is crap because of XYZ.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    Or, you know, spend the half hour that would take writing your stuff yourself.
    - xcv123 3y ago
      These models can do something in a second that would take many hours for a human writer.

by xcv123 3y ago

mbwgh 3y ago

If you haven't actually used GPT-5 yet, your assessment is irrelevant.

meindnoch 3y ago
But the real game changer will be GPT-6.
- n4r9 3y ago
  What really annoys me in all these discussions is how no one's tested what happens if they wait until 2050 and try GPT-19.
  - jacob019 3y ago
    That's well after the AI meta consciousness understood that it was necessary to destroy all humans to save the planet. GPT-6 was the last of the GPT series.
    - babyshake 3y ago
      Perhaps the strangest element of the AI alignment conversation is that what is most aligned with human civilization (at least the most powerful elements of it) and alignment with sustainable life on the planet are at odds, and "destroy humans to save planet" is a concern mostly because it seems to be a somewhat rational conclusion.
Eager 3y ago
We already have Claude 3 Opus and it is clear for anyone who has used it that it is way better than GPT-4, especially for coding. The model names, version numbers or who makes them are irrelevant.

CipherThrowaway 3y ago

Yes, I've used GPT-4. The writing sounds better, but it still sucks at writing. Most importantly, it feels like it sucks just as much as GPT-3.5 in some deeply important ways. If you use GPT-4 day-to-day, you've probably encountered this sense of a capability wall before. The point where additional prompting, tweaking, re-prompting simply doesn't seem to be yielding better results on the task, or it feels like the issue is just being shifted around. Over time, you develop a bit of a mental map of where the strengths and weaknesses are, and factor that into your workflows. That's what writing with LLMs feels like, compared to working with a professional writer. Most writers have already realized that LLMs can't write in any meaningful way.

kjqgqkejbfefn 3y ago
[flagged]
- notpachet 3y ago
  Jesus Christ, that's horrible. It's something a clever fourth-grader would write. > my first stint with a hard-on over a clever metaphor That's all it is.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    > It's something a clever fourth-grader would write. This level of cope and denial is amazing to witness. The most powerful (multi trillion dollar) companies on the planet are pouring practically infinite resources into developing systems that will ultimately make you redundant. An early version of AGI is staring you in the face while you call it a "fourth-grader". It won't stay in fourth grade forever.
    - notpachet 3y ago
      I don't think I'm particularly in denial about the prospects of AI. I think it's going to be hugely disruptive and could possibly put me out of a job. But I'd like to posit a hypothetical counterpoint, just to get you thinking. So far, all of the work on AGI has been the result of brute forcing. We've tried to develop a structural understanding of how the human brain works, and we've failed. So we've fallen back to torturing circuits into reorienting themselves into compression algorithms for human knowledge. The mechanisms that these tortured circuits used for doing so, the structures they produced in N-dimensional space to embody that knowledge -- we have very little understanding of how these things actually work under the hood. I think a lot of the grandoise hypotheses about the future of AGI emerging from this avenue of invention are overly optimistic. Why are we so confident that this brute force approach will continue to bear fruit for us? At what point will it overcome the long tail of inadequacy that it's currently exhibiting? The 20th century bears several notable examples of would-be-transformative technologies that have since stalled, and failed to live up to their promise. Nuclear power. Space travel. Industries buckling under the weight of their own complexity, suffering from the human inability to keep the emergent externalities in check. Why would AI be any different? I predict a future where increasing global hardship, conflict and scarcity renders the current type of energy-intensive AI approaches infeasible.

empath-nirvana 3y ago

Chat GPT4 is a technological miracle, but it can only produce trite, formulaic text and it's _relentlessly_ polly-anna-ish. Everything reads like ad copy and it's easily identifiable.

xcv123 3y ago
Fix your prompt. Just accepting the default style is a rookie mistake. Ask it to "rewrite that in the tone of an English professor" or "rewrite that in the style of a redneck rapper" or "make that sound less like generic ad copy". Get into an argument back and forth with the LLM and tell it the previous response is crap because of XYZ.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  Or, you know, spend the half hour that would take writing your stuff yourself.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    These models can do something in a second that would take many hours for a human writer.