wizeman

18 ms·

121.
by wizeman 4y ago
> The system is not self-training in real time. There are quite a few credible indications/anecdotes (including my own) that there is real-time adaptation going on to these "jailbreak" attempts, which seems to be getting h
122.
by wizeman 4y ago
If that is true, that actually explains a lot of what's happening. However, some people have commented that ChatGPT was just GPT-3 wrapped in a better UX. How do you know it's a different model?
123.
by wizeman 4y ago
> I'd expect the `copy_to_user` call to be inside `dev_read`, so that the userspace program can read the result with a further `read()` call, instead of the buffer it gave to `write()` being mutated (that would probably not even wor
124.
by wizeman 4y ago
Interestingly, the same thing has been happening with reviews of products, although usually they are written by humans that are paid to write those (extremely biased, mostly deceitful) reviews. I mean, just look at many Amazon review commen
125.
by wizeman 4y ago
> There is no incentive for AI to be correct, nor any incentive for it to become more correct. Are you saying that for current AI, or also for future AI? I'm not an expert, but I think reinforcement learning is a pretty well-establi
126.
by wizeman 4y ago
> AI even at its best won’t be a part of that consensus unless it’s also working in the field. A single AI can theoretically have the sum total of knowledge/experience that all humans have ever written, be it on a book, research pap
127.
by wizeman 4y ago
> 1/2 correct - 40 weeks is 10 months from conception to birth. Sorry, is this a cultural difference or are you just nitpicking math? Even Wikipedia says: This is just over nine months. I have never seen anyone argue that pregnancy
128.
by wizeman 4y ago
> Further, it is not unreasonable to have more interest in some cultures than others, or find the experiences of ones own culture more engaging or relevant to oneself than another. The "line of immorality" comes with banning or
129.
by wizeman 4y ago
> Aside from the boilerplate, which it got mostly right as far as I can tell, the actual logic is hilariously wrong. Please do tell, how is it hilariously wrong? It seems to have written a factorial function just like it should, it imple
130.
by wizeman 4y ago
> Yes but at least they choose what they regurgitate unless you think of most people as automatons. And what, are you saying ChatGPT doesn't choose what it regurgitates? It seems like these arguments are getting more and more flimsy
131.
by wizeman 4y ago
> But if I ask for a human, I want a human. > I don't care if AI is more interesting than a human. I want a human, because I am human. I am not transhumanist. I think I understand your point but I'd like to give a counterpoi
132.
by wizeman 4y ago
> Fortunately, a human will know to fix that broken 4-space indentation and that brace placement before inclusion in the Linux kernel repository. What's your point, that ChatGPT wouldn't know how to do that, especially if the k
133.
by wizeman 4y ago
> People are most interested in what their peers have to say, not any random human being or human level AI. > Now if this human level AI is working in the field as a professional, or at least in computer science academia the it’s opin
134.
by wizeman 4y ago
> This reads like a ChatGPT response. (So does my response!) Your comment is very interesting, because I'm having the same experience: the more I interact with ChatGPT and read its arguments/responses, the more I'm getting
135.
by wizeman 4y ago
Wow, that's an interesting argument if I ever saw one! Your viewpoint is completely the opposite of mine, let me argue a couple of points: > An AI cannot, by definition, create better HN content. Because HN content is about hearing
136.
by wizeman 4y ago
Exactly, just like what humans do. So you could say it did its task perfectly. It's like what they say: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Similarly: teach stupid things, learn stupid things.
137.
by wizeman 4y ago
> I started programming in the 80's on a Commodore 128. I had the Commodore BASIC manual, and just went from there. ChatGPT can also learn about Commodore programming if you feed it the Commodore BASIC manual during training. My gu
138.
by wizeman 4y ago
> Weird flex, as that code is like 90% boilerplate[1]. Isn't 90% of code boilerplate anyway? Also, didn't ChatGPT generate more than just the boilerplate? Didn't it interpret what I wanted and generated the code for comput
139.
by wizeman 4y ago
> One technique, like all the other self-moderation that you can do on HN: stop upvoting and commenting on content that you don’t want to see boosted. But isn't that what most people are presumably doing already? I guess my question
140.
by wizeman 4y ago
> ChatGPT can't write a kernel device driver, and it can't act as a no-code tool for non-programmers. Those are the hard parts. Oh, do I have news for you then. Look at what I just did with ChatGPT in 30 seconds (and I did not
141.
by wizeman 4y ago
> I think we are going to have to take an aggressive stance against mediocre generated content here on HN, lest this small island of community be lost like the rest of the Old Internet. How do you propose we do that? And what do you prop
142.
by wizeman 4y ago
> I would expect most automotive engineers don't let their children drive the cars they go to the office to create and propagate every day. Because... they're children. On the other hand, most parents don't let their child
143.
by wizeman 4y ago
> You do realize that the code you see regurgitated is most likely some permuted variant of a question/answer on Stack Overflow or a pull request on Github, right? What do you think coders do? Did they learn to code by themselves, w
144.
by wizeman 4y ago
> And that misconceived data is what ChatGPT was trained on! And so what? Are you saying humans only ever access factually-accurate data when learning? In fact, aren't memes just humans repeating (with minor changes) what they'
145.
by wizeman 4y ago
> but are we saying robots can behave intelligently as a human? I believe that ChatGPT can behave more intelligently than most humans at many important and useful tasks already. I also believe that it behaves less intelligently than
146.
by wizeman 4y ago
No, because I'm not saying robots are human just because they're intelligent. The analogy is more like: if robots can write like a human, then robots have the ability to write, and saying otherwise is just applying a double standa
147.
by wizeman 4y ago
I really don't understand the argument you're making. From my perspective, you're doing exactly what I said: you're setting a double standard, like the previous poster. If I have a robot that talks like a human, includin
148.
by wizeman 4y ago
Almost all the comments I've seen criticizing ChatGPT run into the same fallacy: they're applying a double standard compared to humans. What you said applies to output produced by humans as well. Similarly, many humans also have d
149.
by wizeman 4y ago
It's probably fair to say that it's a probabilistic language, given that you might not always get the correct result (e.g. if you multiply two large integers).
150.
by wizeman 4y ago
And now with ChatGPT (and this is my last one, I promise!) > Write a satirical example of a Hacker News thread about a new service being released. Title: "Introducing the ultimate solution for lazy people: the 'Do-Nothing'

More ›