HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

iiilx

5 karma · joined March 30, 2011

young developer.
submissionscomments
iiilx··on Don Knuth plays with ChatGPT
fwiw the prompt wasn't that good.

Here's my prompt: Make up a plausible conversation of what Donald Knuth says to Stephen Wolfram about chatGPT.

Output: Donald Knuth: Stephen, I've been studying the OpenAI's GPT model, in this case, ChatGPT. I'm impressed by how much it has improved over the years and the capabilities it has now.

Stephen Wolfram: Yes, I've been observing the progress of GPT too, Donald. It's an intriguing representation of where we've arrived in computational linguistics and AI. Yet, I find it fascinating how much of its learning depends on the breadth and depth of training data.

Donald Knuth: Indeed, Stephen. It’s remarkable to see that it can produce plausible-sounding text across a wide range of topics. However, like any tool, it still has its limitations, particularly when it comes to producing entirely reliable or context-specific information.

Stephen Wolfram: Right, the lack of a true understanding of the content it's generating is its main limitation. For instance, it can’t make real-world interventions or learn from specific interactions beyond its training cut-off. But the way it has been designed to simulate conversation is quite fascinating, even though it's fundamentally a pattern matching mechanism, rather than a thinking entity.

Donald Knuth: I share your perspective, Stephen. It's impressive to see how far machine learning models like ChatGPT have come, but there's a lot of ground to cover when it comes to the essence of comprehension and knowledge application. In terms of mathematical representation and handling, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Stephen Wolfram: Absolutely, Donald. Mathematical models can offer so much more than pattern recognition. If a model like ChatGPT could incorporate more of the principles of computational thinking, it might generate responses that are not just statistically likely, but also meaningful in a deeper sense.

Donald Knuth: I agree. It seems like the next frontier for models like ChatGPT could be the integration of symbolic computation or at least some form of knowledge representation that mimics understanding. That’s where your work on Mathematica and Wolfram Language can be really enlightening, Stephen.

Stephen Wolfram: That's a compelling thought, Donald. Taking advantage of the power of symbolic computation, we could push the boundaries of what AI systems like ChatGPT can do. I suppose this is one of the thrilling parts of living in this era – the possibilities for what we can build next seem endless.

Donald Knuth: Indeed, Stephen. It's an exciting time for both computer science and AI. We're in a unique position to shape the future of these technologies and their impact on society.

iiilx··on Don Knuth plays with ChatGPT
Make up a plausible conversation of what Donald Knuth says to Stephen Wolfram about chatGPT.

Donald Knuth: Stephen, I've been studying the OpenAI's GPT model, in this case, ChatGPT. I'm impressed by how much it has improved over the years and the capabilities it has now.

Stephen Wolfram: Yes, I've been observing the progress of GPT too, Donald. It's an intriguing representation of where we've arrived in computational linguistics and AI. Yet, I find it fascinating how much of its learning depends on the breadth and depth of training data.

Donald Knuth: Indeed, Stephen. It’s remarkable to see that it can produce plausible-sounding text across a wide range of topics. However, like any tool, it still has its limitations, particularly when it comes to producing entirely reliable or context-specific information.

Stephen Wolfram: Right, the lack of a true understanding of the content it's generating is its main limitation. For instance, it can’t make real-world interventions or learn from specific interactions beyond its training cut-off. But the way it has been designed to simulate conversation is quite fascinating, even though it's fundamentally a pattern matching mechanism, rather than a thinking entity.

Donald Knuth: I share your perspective, Stephen. It's impressive to see how far machine learning models like ChatGPT have come, but there's a lot of ground to cover when it comes to the essence of comprehension and knowledge application. In terms of mathematical representation and handling, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Stephen Wolfram: Absolutely, Donald. Mathematical models can offer so much more than pattern recognition. If a model like ChatGPT could incorporate more of the principles of computational thinking, it might generate responses that are not just statistically likely, but also meaningful in a deeper sense.

Donald Knuth: I agree. It seems like the next frontier for models like ChatGPT could be the integration of symbolic computation or at least some form of knowledge representation that mimics understanding. That’s where your work on Mathematica and Wolfram Language can be really enlightening, Stephen.

Stephen Wolfram: That's a compelling thought, Donald. Taking advantage of the power of symbolic computation, we could push the boundaries of what AI systems like ChatGPT can do. I suppose this is one of the thrilling parts of living in this era – the possibilities for what we can build next seem endless.

Donald Knuth: Indeed, Stephen. It's an exciting time for both computer science and AI. We're in a unique position to shape the future of these technologies and their impact on society.

iiilx··on PayDragon (YC S11) raises $1.35M so hungry people can skip lines
I think they're competing with at least one company who is pretty far ahead in the market like gopago. Their presence seems pretty big in SF at least...I've used it in SF a few times and it's pretty convenient.
iiilx··on Ask HN: How do programmers and developers handle stress?
ice cream :P
iiilx··on 30kloc and $0 revenue. Lessons from my failed startup (& code release)
Dang great story. I've been working on a few projects here and there. The first one was too big a project and I called it quits after 2 months because 1) I did it for learning purposes and 2) it was too big to complete and launch in regards to other competitors. But 3 years is a long time to spend on a project. There are definitely lessons to be learned here and as long as you don't lose hope, you will eventually find something that works. Your mention of testing if people would actually buy your service/product w/o writing the code behind it is a great idea, much like what I read in the 4 Hour Work Week. Definitely something entrepreneurs should apply if possible in order to reduce the amount of time potentially spent on doomed projects or projects that need to pivot.
iiilx··on How can hackers get feedback abt their work w/o competing with unrelated posts?
Nice I checked it out. I started a thread, hopefully people will join in on the discussion. Hopefully more people join your site.
iiilx··on How can hackers get feedback abt their work w/o competing with unrelated posts?
I think I just found my next project. Scraping HN (I'll be gentle) and letting people tag submissions.
iiilx··on How can hackers get feedback abt their work w/o competing with unrelated posts?
For example, I prefer not to see stuff like Pope Benedict's twitter posts. This may be put in the "random shit" category where people who like that stuff can go and see what they want to see. Maybe another category for acquisitions. Even using tags would be beneficial. This is HN! shouldn't it be improving? You can always maintain the current look by having the front page using the same ranking algo, just at least add other categories/tags. Maybe this exists. If it does, sorry for posting.