roflyear

50 ms·

871.
by roflyear 4y ago
It's a step up by an order of magnitude for certain things. Like chess. It is really good at chess actually. But not programming. Seems maybe marginally better on average. Worse in some ways.
872.
by roflyear 4y ago
How so?
873.
by roflyear 4y ago
And you only used the most popular example of getting started and one of if not the most popular programming languages. Amazing.
874.
by roflyear 4y ago
Sure, or even an existing algo or method that is applied to something very niche that hasn't been done much (at least in the data GPT is trained on, I guess). In my experience these things need a little nuance communicated as a part of
875.
by roflyear 4y ago
I'm not looking for help, so I don't think we're really trying to have the same conversation.
876.
by roflyear 4y ago
> so as you clarify, its responses get much closer to the target. This isn't a given. Plenty of times this isn't true. You cannot convince GPT to answer every problem all the time. For example, try and teach it a grammar. No m
877.
by roflyear 4y ago
What I am saying is you can't get GPT to solve any problem you throw at it. What you can probably do is get it to give you a correct answer that it was trained on. Those are different things. You can't teach it new information,
878.
by roflyear 4y ago
"should be fine" - how do you determine this? There have been many, many cases where I was not able to get GPT-4 to "understand" my problem. No matter how much I tried (until I hit the rate limit for those hours, anyway)
879.
by roflyear 4y ago
ORMs generally give you a lot of nice things, and you usually (always??) can just write pure SQL and use the models you've defined (and all those nice things). So, use an ORM, but write SQL if you want? Sounds like a good idea, actuall
880.
by roflyear 4y ago
Sure but GPT certainly cannot actually do this. It can iterate, but in GPT-world that means "give me another response" not "learn from what i'm saying, and give me another response" The issue is, sometimes those t
881.
by roflyear 4y ago
Yeah maybe! Just like if you have enough monkeys iterating on enough keyboards...
882.
by roflyear 4y ago
> can scale current models towards "true understanding" (or similar), is a total unknown atm. Right, but it's no more known than before GPT models IMO. It's the same unknown. I don't mean to imply these language
883.
by roflyear 4y ago
Look man, even plumbing estimates are usually way off - but they know how long it takes to hook up two pipes that are 30' long for your new bathroom. They don't need to have meetings about it during the process. They don't ne
884.
by roflyear 4y ago
Well, much easier for a bathroom. It isn't like you have to have meetings, planning, interact with third parties, etc.. when redoing a bathroom! If a client asks me for "an endpoint that accepts a text file and gives me a PDF&quot
885.
by roflyear 4y ago
Have not had that experience with GPT-4. But that is almost unusable for me anyway because it's crazy slow (during US working hours anyway, it's faster at night) and the rate caps get hit before we get anywhere.
886.
by roflyear 4y ago
I'm just not talking about trying to fish an accurate answer. I think you can do that. I'm talking about getting an answer about something that requires an interaction that gets the model to "understand" the problem (lik
887.
by roflyear 4y ago
It's true, but there is no indication that GPT can explain larger concepts for you, and negative indication it will be able to do it accurately. It can't even explain small code to me unless it is something that it has been traine
888.
by roflyear 4y ago
Absolutely not what was suggested, but ok.
889.
by roflyear 4y ago
Agreed. Watching people react this way makes me question our collective intelligence.
890.
by roflyear 4y ago
Nope, not my experience - unless it's a trivial problem. In my experience it almost always gets stuck in a loop where it's rotating between two or more incorrect implementations. It isn't doing iteration - it's just loop
891.
by roflyear 4y ago
I'm not talking about informational stuff.
892.
by roflyear 4y ago
Yes it will be able to give amazing feedback to us as devs and quickly identify common problems (that I still make all the time, even after developing for a decade!) which will bring a ton of value to programmers. But, it will be a tool - i
893.
by roflyear 4y ago
It isn't anywhere near being able to diagnose anything more than off-by-one and other common errors. Identifying hose problems will bring a LOT of value - but it isn't going to program and do general problem solving for you! It ju
894.
by roflyear 4y ago
Explain how it improved. Yes, it has improved accuracy (test taking) but it still gets stuck in the same loops over and over: "response has issue A" -> point out issue A to GPT "response has issue B" -> point out i
895.
by roflyear 4y ago
I agree. GPT4 is impressive when asked to play chess, but the incapacity for understanding makes it really limiting
896.
by roflyear 4y ago
Don't make stuff up. There is no indication that will happen.
897.
by roflyear 4y ago
Yes unless you understand the problem well it is hard to fix it. Might as well code it yourself. I suspect the people who find this amazing tech don't program much or are using this very differently than we are. Or program very differe
898.
by roflyear 4y ago
You know, I thought so but then recently I asked it to code me a function to do a financial calc and it just didn't get there at all. It gave me code but it was really poor and didn't do close to what I wanted. But when I gave it
899.
by roflyear 4y ago
HN is not interested in spending money in these ways.
900.
by roflyear 4y ago
No. IT layoffs are because companies realized they could do layoffs.

More ›