Hacker News Reader

Comment by JieJie | Hacker News Reader

One doesn't have to treat a tool like a human to treat a tool with respect.

A good craftsperson don't leave their tools out in the rain and they take good care of them, that's what good craftspeople do with fine tools.

The technology behind chatbots is probably the finest, most well-engineered tool any of us will ever use in our lifetimes, and if we are very, very lucky, we will be able to keep developing them further.

Getting upset because our magic talking swords are too polite is a pinnacle of modern-day tech problems.

View on HN

If a tool does not do what you want it to do, it’s not a good tool for the purpose. That includes a LLM being too polite, just like it includes a LLM confabulating a wrong answer to a question.

Besides, it is impossible to treat ChatGPT wrong or poorly. It won’t be harmed no matter how you treat it.

This is a good rebuttal.

Right now, Bing Chat is a little bit too Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Genuine People Personality for me[0].

I advocate for open source foundation models so we can all craft personalities tuned to our needs. I think the best tools are adaptable to their user.

I went a little overboard on that. We are all reacting to the somewhat-sudden appearance of this new technology in ways that can be a little bit stress-inducing. I made every effort to at least match or lower the temperature from the tone in the original post.

From my point of view, I treat the tool well because it's good for me to treat it well. I also think, as is the topic here, that it makes the tool function better. I see it as an intellect-mirror, and it is happy to reflect whatever I show it back at me.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/douglas-adams-was-ri...

I wouldn’t leave my tools to rust but I also wouldn’t tuck them in bed and sing a lullaby to them

I see your point. On the other side, I can think of one reason for wanting to remove superfluous words: the user pays per token.

If you're paying per token for ChatGPT, I am surprised. You pay nothing to get access to ChatGPT. Plus subscribers get access to GPT4, but they pay per month (with ratelimits are per N reqeusts / X hours), not per token.

If you're paying for API, you have text-davinci, it is not behaving the way like free ChatGPT behaves.

> If you're paying for API, you have text-davinci, it is not behaving the way like free ChatGPT behaves.

No, you can get both gpt-3.5-turbo (GA) and gpt4 (behind a waitlist) via API, not just text-davinci and other non-chat models.

Try asking same complex question from OP to gpt-3.5-turbo and text-davinci. 80% chance they'll be very different no matter the temperature.

More like 99% chance, as GPT-3.5-turbo is just as large as GPT-2-XL.

You don’t leave real tools out in the rain because they’re gonna corrode. Is your AI gonna corrode?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com