random_cynic

No one cares about your anecdotes and feelings. These people conducted thousands of systematic tests for at least six months. If you want to be taken seriously then do the same.

Stephen Wolfram himself thought that Wolfram could be combined with GPT when ChatGPT was released like 4 months ago. Only due to that they worked together to build the plugin. He also authored the best article I've seen on how ChatGPT and more broadly LLMs work (that has now been turned into a book).

> its almost silly to question Google's ability to build useful LLMs.

Unless they release a model one can "use" and verify their claims it's literally silly to make this statement.

> good AI use cases (quick formatting, intelligent auto-completes, intention detection from sheet structure) could probably speed us up by 20%

That would imply these AI systems have been integrated well, which in most cases are not and I suspect the amount of work it would take to do it properly would not pay off considering the limited window available before people transition to a fully chat based system.

> but convincing management of the value of a full system re-design by comparison would likely be a very tough sell

In this case it would be convincing the management to transition to a system where you can just order around and someone/something would get the job done, which is well in their comfort zone (I'm only half joking).

> They are aggressively integrating it into their products

And no reason to suspect that it won't spectacularly backfire. Not that they're integrating (or more correctly slapping it on with some hot glue) transformative technology they barely understand into legacy products which are themselves likely to go defunct. Why even use a spreadsheet when you can get GPT-4 to write a whole data analysis pipeline and summarize everything? Or why bother with word documents when GPT-4 can generate, spell/grammar check, translate (if necessary), format and output into any format you want?

Without the underlying model what's the point of the facade?

There are literally thousands of chat clients based off their API. So are they also chatGPT or the model they specifically trained and aligned for chat?

I like how people on Reddit cannot distinguish between ChatGPT itself and its web front end. I thought Reddit is programmer friendly. Has anyone checked if the services using the API have been affected or not?

I can predict even without looking into comments that we will see all five stages here but probably mostly still denial. I'm excited primarily because this is really the best educational tool I've ever seen, I want to see what I can create with this.

Except in this case, the correct answer is really one each. No one responsible will feed kids that young four muffins in one go. :)

Maybe stop treating it like an intern and learn some prompt engineering (there are good tools out there).

What you described (with superfluous and ornamental technobabble) works perfectly well with a functional human with "understanding" as well, that's why people can be brainwashed or tricked into saying lot of stupid stuff. None of these proves that there is no understanding.

It's remarkable that you skipped past "companies from every category" and jumped straight into your ramblings about Microsoft. I don't care about Microsoft, I used them as an example to disprove your bollocks claim about GPT-x not being useful. As I said, take a look at the list of their current partners. One option would certainly be that you're the only one with insight and all these companies are led by morons with no vision or foresight or the alternative could be that you're just wrong and too egotistic to admit that a piece of technology is better than you in many aspects.

That's because people haven't been imaginative enough to use them that way (they're too busy jailbreaking it to say racist things or proselytizing on social media). Even in past 24 hours some people have already found it use in drug discovery using its ability to synthesize and relate different types of knowledge. One of the main ways new knowledge arises is through connecting knowledges in disparate areas and finding relationships among them, and LLMs (especially GPT-4) has been demonstrated to be quite good in this area.

> I'm less impressed by OpenAI's GPT-x because I don't think it's very useful technology

Living in that sort of bubble must be very uncomfortable. Companies from virtually every category are pouring money in OpenAI starting with Microsoft. Just go and take a look at their partners and which field they belong to.

You're in denial. That's okay, everyone is too.

What has happened to this site? Full of bs takes like this.

So not only Redditors copy every post from here, they somehow also have to join the discussions here and drag the whole site down to their level.

Hate to inform you that the "cat is literally out of the bag" now. There's no putting it back. If it isn't DA it would be someone else. Right now, anyone who does anything creative like painters, authors, composers, designers have to live with the fact that AI can generate something similar to what they can and (this is the most tragic part) generate material that would be indistinguishable (or perhaps even superior) to the general public who're not connoisseurs of their art.

So google is trying to both kill Mozilla and keep it alive? Are they trying to create a Schrodinger's Mozilla?

Please read again. Thanks

> I'm sure the future without MV2 will have users launching .exe files to mod Chrome which is much much worse

Average internet (hence chrome user) don't even know what mod means. They don't care about ads (at least not enough to actively make any change). If the ads become too annoying they'll just skip the video or won't visit a website again and the people serving the ads know that.

From the fact that there are so many government, university and bank websites that simply doesn't work with Firefox or anything other than non-chromium based. In fact, many explicitly say that the user needs to use Chrome for the best experience. You can of course ignore and say that these don't happen in your reality but you only need to take a look at Firefox forums or issues/bug threads to know that they are very real.

> A fad has nothing to do with when the stuff was invented. It only has to do with people choosing it from the dominant reason being other people chooses it.

If that's your interpretation of a fad then you're still wrong. The dominant reason why people choose Python is the strong ecosystems that have been built around it - everything from scientific computing, data analysis, machine learning, web frameworks and so on. This happened over decades. And it's no coincidence why so many good libraries have been written in Python. All of their creators have publicly admitted they loved Python syntax, wanted to code in Python and nothing else in their jobs even if it means having to write a whole different library. And because Python has so low threshold for beginners, these caught on fairly quickly and took over. Python core developers listend to the community and quickly adapted to their needs. Meanwhile Perl gods buried their heads in their pursuit of the most perfect programming language ever - and we all know how that turned out.

> So why Python didn't succeed when Perl dominated?

Who said it didn't succeed? It's growth was just slower than Perl. It was slowly building up steam. While Perl exploded and ran out of fuel in 10 years.

> Do not write scripts the way we write shell scripts.

This has nothing to do with writing new scripts. Read my comment again. This is about maintaining/adapting legacy code from 10-20 years back. In 90% of the cases for Perl that means a complete rewrite because there's no point spending time understanding the gibberish. I can't really go back in time and tell those people to write good code or be "good practitioners". And if I have to do a rewrite now, there's absolutely no reason to choose Perl, that ship sailed in early 2000s.

> Just because it took longer to learn, that doesn't mean it's better or worse at creating good code. It does mean that armchair pundits are less likely to be correct in their hot takes. They lack experience and understanding

Ah yes the same snobbery and inability to take criticism that's been the standard since the 90s. And people wonder why Perl is dying (so is Emacs, Vim only survived because a significant part of the community decided to break away, refactor create a community that's more engaing and less snobbish). You forget what Perl was made for. Basically a replacement for awk/sed and so on and writing quick scripts that can be used elsewhere. If a newbie want to invest significant time and effort learning a new language why the hell they will spend it on Perl rather than a real language like C/C++ and in more modern times Rust, Go or Swift that actually creates performant code?

> People still trying to revive Perl against modern fad, for example, Python.

Lmao Python has been around since 1991 only three years after Perl appeared. How's it a fad? Sucess of python is a testament to the difference a simple and beginner-friendly syntax can make as well as the "batteries-included" paradigm. Most people don't realize how much of a difference these things make especially in removing the initial barrier to get started with programming. There's a reason Go language creators enforced a rigid formatting requirement. It not only improves readability but helps in creating clever tools for syntax checking and other tasks. Readability is key, the fact that Perl code is compatible with that 20 years before makes no difference as they have such bad readability (especially quickly made scripts for sysadmin tasks which no newbie can understand and maintain now). So even for now Python is the best choice for shell scripting, eventually until Go takes over. At this point unfortunately I don't see any area where Perl can make a difference compared to other languages.

Are you serious? Writing a shell script or thinking about ways of tweaking stuff is not valuable but wasting time reinventing wheel is? You're the perfect example why there is a complete lack of creativity. Everyone is about making pointless abstractions no actual substance.

Another pointless "replacement", that achieves what anyone with a basic knowledge of Unix and shell scripting can put together with couple of aliases and/or shell scripts. No thanks. Most of development today is basically about creating remakes/replacement of some totally perfect tool and trying to feed off of it's popularity. Developer creativity at an all time low.

> What it was "optimized for" is irrelevant if it's legible and has good information.

It's not having good information that is important, what's critical is finding relevant information quickly, tagging and linking it to other parts of the document and external sources. Also information does not have to be limited to text format, especially for manuals a graphic or a small video can be worth more than thousand written words. Welcome to 21st century. All information you'll ever need is present in the source code, then why even bother creating a documentation? Manpage is limited for even text terminals, texinfo is so much better.

I agree regarding the need to keep the documentation updated. However, it's quite easy to get support from the community and putting a request to update an outdated article or section.