4 ms·

And what has enormously improved since ChatGPTs launch? Maybe you should ask it what it "thinks" about the hype surrounding it.

by kubb 2y ago

mmcnl 2y ago
This is a good question. According to some the growth is exponential. Others think ChatGPT is basically still the same as it was at the end of 2022, minor differences aside. Why are the perspectives so different?
- kubb 2y ago
  One of these archetypes is drowning in a hype-fueled news cycle, they mistake speculation for inevitability, dismiss skepticism as ignorance, and construct a reality where the technology's success is unquestionable. The other is simply using the technology for what it's good for, observing that it's slowly, incrementally improving at tasks that it was already capable of since the major breakthrough, and acknowledging its limitations. Incremental improvements don't give us any assurance that another major breakthrough is waiting around the corner.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
ChatGPT launched with GPT-3.5. We're now at o1 and o3-mini and DeepSeek-R1, but even in the last year with GPT-4 and GPT-4o, it became better than almost everything involving text than average human. It writes better than average person, faster and cheaper. It parses unstructured data better than average person. There's large number of everyday tasks for which it's perfectly reasonable today to just throw them at ChatGPT. That's all last 1 to 1.5 years.
- kubb 2y ago
  Oh, we have new letter-number combinations now. That is amazing. I stand corrected.
  - andrewchambers 2y ago
    If you haven't tried using them then I am not sure your opinion on them is any good.
    - kubb 2y ago
      I dare say I'm more familiar with the capabilities of the leading models than certain big tech CEOs are, at least judging by their publicly communicated opinions.
    - anon22981 2y ago
      I use the 4o very often in my work and it mostly sucks. Sometimes it’s very good, sometimes it has nice knowledge that was faster to find from it than a search engine. Mostly it spouts out unhelpful noise (for my problems). I’m sure if you need to make a to-do list in react it’s like magic (until the app gets complicated). In real world use, not so much. (Also I have often code reviewed PRs from people who are heavy users and surprise surprise - their output is trash and very prone to bugs or being out of spec.)
      - TuxSH 2y ago
        I also think 4o sucks, but have you tried DeepSeek R1 (free on their website)? I thought it night and day between 4o and o3-mini on the following topics: - reverse engineering: when fed assembly (or decomp or mock impl), it's been consistently been able to figure out what the function actually does/why it's there from a high-level perspective. Whereas ChatGPT merely states the obvious - very technical C++ questions: DSR1 gives much more detailed answers, with bullet points and examples. Much better writing style. Slightly prone to hallucinations, but not that much - any controversial topic: ChatGPT models are trained to avoid these because of its "safety" training ChatGPT is a bit better (and faster) at writing simple code and doing some math faster, but that's it. (obviously, common sense about what to share and not to share with these chatbots still apply, etc.)
        TeMPOraL 2y ago
M4v3R 2y ago
If you don’t see the difference in quality of responses between GPT-3.5 as it launched in 2022 and o1/o3 then I don’t know what to tell you. I am using these models daily and the difference is night and day.
ben_w 2y ago
In addition to passing bar exam[0], improved performance on medical questions[1], economics questions that experts thought it was years away from[2], all the other things marked in green on page 6 were just the changes from 3.5 to 4: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08774 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08774 4o added image analysis. The o-series starting at o1 improves on 4o as per the margins in these charts: https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/ https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/ I'll have to wait and see about o3, because only the mini model is out yet. [0] https://law.stanford.edu/2023/04/19/gpt-4-passes-the-bar-exam-what-that-means-for-artificial-intelligence-tools-in-the-legal-industry/ https://law.stanford.edu/2023/04/19/gpt-4-passes-the-bar-exa... [1] https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIdbp2300192 https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIdbp2300192 [2] https://www.betonit.ai/p/gpt-4-takes-a-new-midterm-and-gets https://www.betonit.ai/p/gpt-4-takes-a-new-midterm-and-gets
- kubb 2y ago
  At this point just paste my comments into ChatGPT and ask it to explain to you what I mean by them. Then paste your response and ask it why it's not addressing the point made. At least use the tool for what it's good for.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    So you're saying that it understands you better than I do? I get that feeling too (in both directions) but this vague and hard to quantify sensation is not what I'd suggest in response to your clearly stated question: > And what has enormously improved since ChatGPTs launch? Which is, I think, answered by the things I listed.
    - kubb 2y ago
      It doesn’t understand me, but it could help you understand. What you listed aren’t major unexpected leaps but incremental improvements on things that already were known to be possible. But you insist on being obstinate. ChatGPT advised me to disengage from this conversation.
- 2y ago

And what has enormously improved since ChatGPTs launch? Maybe you should ask it what it "thinks" about the hype surrounding it.

by kubb 2y ago

And what has enormously improved since ChatGPTs launch? Maybe you should ask it what it "thinks" about the hype surrounding it.

mmcnl 2y ago

This is a good question. According to some the growth is exponential. Others think ChatGPT is basically still the same as it was at the end of 2022, minor differences aside. Why are the perspectives so different?

kubb 2y ago
One of these archetypes is drowning in a hype-fueled news cycle, they mistake speculation for inevitability, dismiss skepticism as ignorance, and construct a reality where the technology's success is unquestionable. The other is simply using the technology for what it's good for, observing that it's slowly, incrementally improving at tasks that it was already capable of since the major breakthrough, and acknowledging its limitations. Incremental improvements don't give us any assurance that another major breakthrough is waiting around the corner.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

ChatGPT launched with GPT-3.5. We're now at o1 and o3-mini and DeepSeek-R1, but even in the last year with GPT-4 and GPT-4o, it became better than almost everything involving text than average human. It writes better than average person, faster and cheaper. It parses unstructured data better than average person. There's large number of everyday tasks for which it's perfectly reasonable today to just throw them at ChatGPT. That's all last 1 to 1.5 years.

kubb 2y ago
Oh, we have new letter-number combinations now. That is amazing. I stand corrected.
- andrewchambers 2y ago
  If you haven't tried using them then I am not sure your opinion on them is any good.
  - kubb 2y ago
    I dare say I'm more familiar with the capabilities of the leading models than certain big tech CEOs are, at least judging by their publicly communicated opinions.
  - anon22981 2y ago
    I use the 4o very often in my work and it mostly sucks. Sometimes it’s very good, sometimes it has nice knowledge that was faster to find from it than a search engine. Mostly it spouts out unhelpful noise (for my problems). I’m sure if you need to make a to-do list in react it’s like magic (until the app gets complicated). In real world use, not so much. (Also I have often code reviewed PRs from people who are heavy users and surprise surprise - their output is trash and very prone to bugs or being out of spec.)
    - TuxSH 2y ago
      I also think 4o sucks, but have you tried DeepSeek R1 (free on their website)? I thought it night and day between 4o and o3-mini on the following topics: - reverse engineering: when fed assembly (or decomp or mock impl), it's been consistently been able to figure out what the function actually does/why it's there from a high-level perspective. Whereas ChatGPT merely states the obvious - very technical C++ questions: DSR1 gives much more detailed answers, with bullet points and examples. Much better writing style. Slightly prone to hallucinations, but not that much - any controversial topic: ChatGPT models are trained to avoid these because of its "safety" training ChatGPT is a bit better (and faster) at writing simple code and doing some math faster, but that's it. (obviously, common sense about what to share and not to share with these chatbots still apply, etc.)
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago

M4v3R 2y ago

If you don’t see the difference in quality of responses between GPT-3.5 as it launched in 2022 and o1/o3 then I don’t know what to tell you. I am using these models daily and the difference is night and day.

ben_w 2y ago

In addition to passing bar exam[0], improved performance on medical questions[1], economics questions that experts thought it was years away from[2], all the other things marked in green on page 6 were just the changes from 3.5 to 4: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08774 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08774 4o added image analysis. The o-series starting at o1 improves on 4o as per the margins in these charts: https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/ https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/ I'll have to wait and see about o3, because only the mini model is out yet. [0] https://law.stanford.edu/2023/04/19/gpt-4-passes-the-bar-exam-what-that-means-for-artificial-intelligence-tools-in-the-legal-industry/ https://law.stanford.edu/2023/04/19/gpt-4-passes-the-bar-exa... [1] https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIdbp2300192 https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIdbp2300192 [2] https://www.betonit.ai/p/gpt-4-takes-a-new-midterm-and-gets https://www.betonit.ai/p/gpt-4-takes-a-new-midterm-and-gets

kubb 2y ago
At this point just paste my comments into ChatGPT and ask it to explain to you what I mean by them. Then paste your response and ask it why it's not addressing the point made. At least use the tool for what it's good for.
- ben_w 2y ago
  So you're saying that it understands you better than I do? I get that feeling too (in both directions) but this vague and hard to quantify sensation is not what I'd suggest in response to your clearly stated question: > And what has enormously improved since ChatGPTs launch? Which is, I think, answered by the things I listed.
  - kubb 2y ago
    It doesn’t understand me, but it could help you understand. What you listed aren’t major unexpected leaps but incremental improvements on things that already were known to be possible. But you insist on being obstinate. ChatGPT advised me to disengage from this conversation.
2y ago