Hacker News Reader

Comment by omgomgomgomg | Hacker News Reader

Chatgpt certainly spits out answers and is often right or reasonably close to right. But it cant be trusted on complex tasks and I do not think it is a good AI, I have to repeat, this thing is supposed to be an AI,but it does the AI part very poorly.

We all know it will trip over questions like what is the record for crossing the atlantic by car/foot and such.

But I have realized there is no feedback loop, or a wrong one.

Having asked the same questions a few days apart, both literally and almost the same wording, they were on the topics probability and ev math, but no trick questions...I was shocked to see it spits out completely different results based on what day I had asked or based on the sentence structure provided.

These are the hard AI problems and this does not look good. No terminator any time soon , I guess.

View on HN

Despite all the (legitimate) criticisms, I still don't understand how some people are not impressed by what has been achieved by OpenAI.

I agree, it's far from perfect, but as a tool it's certainly usable and useful, with quite fascinating emergent behaviour.

I agree, it is something new and refreshing, I consult it frequently on random matters out of curiosity.

It appears it can pass faculty tests, but lets keep in mind you do not need a 100/100 accuracy for that, but in business apps like in fintech, you better deliver 100/100.

So far, it is concatenating google search results and displays that in readable manner.

Co-pilot comes up with better code so far.

I am curious to see where this is going, there must be a plan to monetize, this launch and media presence cannot be explained away differently.

I think it's quite amusing that despite being a "only" a language model that generates text by prediction, it's so good at it that it successfully tricks people into believing it's some kind of AGI that can figure out the "real" answer to anything and do any task and then when it inevitably "fails" a task, people say it's dumb.

But I do agree that for people who understand how it works, it's a bit weird not to be impressed that a language model has the ability to have such good understanding of things and such intriguing capabilities when it's fundamentally just predicting the next token.

I don't think that AGI is binary. It's a (very difficult to measure) scale, the tech that OpenAI produced has brought us further along that scale in my opinion.

If you had hubs/spokes of topical llm's, where you ask about crossing the atlantic, and it pulls from travel/other sources that basically take every question asked, google it, add a timestamp and maybe re-google if timestamp > 3 months, then when I google the same thing, we'll get very similar things. This wouldn't be on chatGPT, but gpt-3/4, but essentially each convo is itself a walled garden, if you opened that up, and gave it access to the internet, and merged very similar questions into 'one' so that when anyone asks that specific question (not exactly but enough for the ai to recognize it), it'll pull from data already processed, thus saving bandwidth, and when it doesn't have the answer it uses the extra saved bandwidth to devour some solid sources online to get that data for you.

That's because it's a large language model, not an AI.

Anyone calling it an AI is buying/selling the hype cycle, or (at best) using an over-general term for ML in general.

Super disingenuous. It's an "AI chatbot", by a company called "OpenAI", whose goal is to "make AI systems more natural". It's artificial, and it actually shows some forms of intelligence including chain-of-thought and understanding of natural language.

It's also clearly the most advanced AI product available to date. Meanwhile, I'm almost certain you have no problem saying a guard NPC in Skyrim has "an AI", so, eh.

every time we reach an AI goalpost, someone is quick to claim that goalpost wasn't /really/ AI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com