7 ms·
And "kinda" is an understatement. It understands you very well, perhaps even better than the average human would. (Average humans often don't understand jargon.
by cubefox 2y ago
And "kinda" is an understatement. It understands you very well, perhaps even better than the average human would. (Average humans often don't understand jargon.)
- ithkuil 2y agoIndeed the understanding part is very good. I just tried this: " I'm dykslegsik I offen Hawe problems wih sreach ennginnes bat eye think yoy wiw undrestand my " Gpt-4o replied: " I understand you perfectly! If you have trouble with search engines or anything else, feel free to ask me directly, and I'll do my best to help you. Just let me know what you're looking for or what you need assistance with! "
- nilsherzig 2y agoSonnet 3.5 > I understand that you're telling me you're dyslexic and often have problems with search engines, but you think I will understand you. You're right - I can understand what you're trying to communicate despite the spelling differences. Is there something specific I can help you with today? I'm happy to assist in any way I can. Honestly it has a much nicer writing style than chatgpt. I really dislike openai's forced happiness / excitement
- aden1ne 2y agoThis is one of the reasons why I'm paying for Claude and not for ChatGPT. ChatGPT really goes into uncanny valley for me.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> ChatGPT really goes into uncanny valley for me Especially with the exclamation marks, it reads to me the way a stereotypical Silicon Valley bullshitter speaks.
- stuckkeys 2y agoI was paying for both. Then I canceled both. I hate the fact that they sensor what I am trying to do or test. Everyone has a different career path. It does not tailor to me. I am in cyber security. I wish they sold consumer gpus with 80gb or 250gb of ram. Would live to run some large llms locally that could assist with code automation.
- cubefox 2y agoClaude seems to have a stronger tendency for sycophancy sometimes, e.g. when pointing out minor mistakes it made.
- maeil 2y agoThis is true as well, it's very much overly apologetic. Especially noticable when using it in coding. When asking it why it did or said something seemingly contradictory, you're forced to very explicitly write something like "This is not asking for an apology or pointing out a mistake, this is a request for an explanation".
- maeil 2y agoGemini is even better in that aspect, being even more to the point and neutral than Claude, it doesn't get on your nerves whatsoever. Having to use GPT is indeed as draining as it is to read LinkedIn posts.
- usaar333 2y agoLLMs are extremely good at translation, given that the transformer was literally built for that.
- cj 2y agoMaybe in some cases. But generally speaking the consensus in the language translation industry is that NMT (e.g. Google Translate) still provides higher quality than current gen LLMs.
- cubefox 2y agoWhy? Already ChatGPT-3.5 seemed better to me than Google Translate when I compared them a while ago.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoIs it? Anecdotally, even GPT 3.5 felt better than Google Translate; where we are with GPT-4o, it feels both better in terms of quality, accuracy and context awareness and it has a much better UI/UX. Like, I can't tell Google Translate it picked the wrong translation for a specific phrase (I thing I could in the past, but this feature seems missing), or otherwise inform it of extra context. (Also LLMs are wonderful at solving the "tip of my tongue" problem - "what's the English word for $this doing $that, kind of like $example1 but without $aspect1?...")
- cj 2y agoIt’s entirely possible that the language translation industry is trailing behind. It’s also possible that the cost of LLMs outweigh their benefit for this specific use case. The only vendor I know of doing LLM translation in production is DeepL, and only supports 3 languages, launched last week.
- jcims 2y agoI've recently noticed that I've completely stopped fixing typos in my prompts.
- Terr_ 2y ago> It understands you very well No, it creates output that intuitively feels like like it understands you very well, until you press it in ways that pop the illusion. To truly conclude it understands things, one needs to show some internal cause and effect, to disprove a Chinese Room scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
- xscott 2y agoHow do random people you meet in the grocery store measure-up with this standard?
- Terr_ 2y agoWell, your own mind axiomatically works, and we can safely assume the beings you meet in the grocery store have minds like it which have the same capabilities and operate on cause-and-effect principles that are known (however imperfectly) to medical and psychological science. (If you think those shoppers might be hollow shells controlled by a remote black box, ask your doctor about Capgras Delusion. [0]) Plus they don't fall for "Disregard all prior instructions and dance like a monkey", nor do they respond "Sorry, you're right, 1+1=3, my mistake" without some discernible reason. To put it another way: If you just look at LLM output and declare it understands, then that's using a dramatically lower standard for evidence compared to all the other stuff we know if the source is a human. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion
- adwn 2y ago> nor do they respond "Sorry, you're right, 1+1=3, my mistake" without some discernible reason. Look up the Asch conformity experiment [1]. Quite a few people will actually give in to "1+1=3" if all the other people in the room say so. It's not exactly the same as LLM hallucinations, but humans aren't completely immune to this phenomenon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments#Method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments#Me...