Hacker News Reader

Comment by moomoo11 | Hacker News Reader

It’s like fire. It’s a tool. Use it to heat your home or use it to burn everything down.

All these articles.. what exactly are you saying that isn’t obvious?

Use GPT for things that don’t have a big subjective bias. Use it for things it is a good fit for.

Also it requires constant indexing. You’re never going to get up to date results unless that technology changes and it can be more real time. That’s why open ai chat gpt says it was trained on data from like 2021.

People who complain about these basic things probably aren’t creative enough to take a technology and run with it.

View on HN

I've seen a lot of articles out there trumpeting how amazing and great ChatGPT is and how it is going to revolutionize the world, and change everything, etc, etc. Basically a level of hype similar to blockchain back in it's heyday.

I take a lot of these articles to be pushing back against the hype surrounding ChatGPT, I mean the average person out there genuinely believes that it is basically a fully conscious AI because it can look and act like a person.

So I think skepticism is warranted and we need people understanding what this tool actually does.

Sure but ChatGPT is useful right now in a way Blockchain never was. It feels more akin to Napster or the original iPhone. Useful right now and if it didn’t progress in anyway it’d still be a solid product. The scary/exciting bit is not knowing where this advancement plateaus.

I'm not sure that saying "Why's everyone making a big deal about this new invention? It's like fire. It can burn your house down." is the best argument to get people to stop complaining.

I think ChatGPT an AI is (or will be soon) more like dimethylmecury. It has a very small, limited number of uses but it's too dangerous and immensely toxic and so its distribution is highly restricted.

Saying it's a tool means nothing. Some tools are too dangerous to be used, like nuclear weapons, and I also believe AI falls under this same category.

Yes, it's a tool, as is all technology. But unlike woodshop or a metalwork class, there's no instructor. The other day I asked ChatGPT to give me a paragraph about hunting tech startups and I got back that it could not do so due to moral issues. While I get that some people have moral issues with hunting, I would venture to guess it's a small minority of people. It could easily give a statement without any big subjective bias, but it didn't do so. If it has issues with something fairly basic, how can we trust it to help senior citizens who are less tech savvy and go to it for simple unbiased medical advice?

> Use GPT for things that don’t have a big subjective bias

The Avatar 2 release date being in the past doesn't have big subjective bias :)

https://www.reddit.com/comments/110eagl

Probably because it was trained on data from 2021? And bing probably did the bare minimum being classic Microsoft and didn’t do any further indexing.

> All these articles.. what exactly are you saying that isn’t obvious?

I bet if we put the microscope on Gary's past 20 years or anyone else's for that matter, we can find plenty of dubious samples. Who hasn't ever shit posted?

The bing ChatGPT preview was being tested in LTT wan show last week and they were looking up their own products that they just posted. So it definitely can do "now" content.

The one thing I had to think about as a result was exactly how much this technology costs for every single query. I think being able to monetize will be an interesting long term question. Sure MS is throwing boat loads of money now because they can maybe disrupt large percentages from Google now, but three-five years, do we really see this being cost effective?

> That’s why open ai chat gpt says it was trained on data from like 2021

I assume it's not due to indexing, but rather due to all the hard manual labour required to markup the training data.

> People who complain about these basic things probably aren’t creative enough to take a technology and run with it.

What I find remarkable is how many HN folks seem to fall into this category, or at least come out of the woodwork to discount GPT in particular. This being a technology community it's quite surprising.

If it’s so obvious what’s everyone doing arguing about ChatGPT being too woke? Apparently it’s not obvious to everyone.

We’ve seen state actors use social media to sway public opinion and sow dissent. Now using AI one can multiply such efforts. It will be easy to create a ton of websites and articles that sound plausible to the uninformed (uninformed in a given area) and have their views altered, directed, or otherwise led down the wrong path. There are people who doubt the efficacy of the polio vaccine. If something as clearly beneficial can have doubts raised about it then I think we are headed for a chaotic future.

ChatGPT is an ignoramus validation tool.

much cheaper to just get humans to write them

Much cheaper to pay someone than to use AI? I’m skeptical of this claim. While you might be right today you won’t be right years from now.

I guess we’ll know what’s possible once Bing with open AI is more widely available. What’s preventing me from injecting a prompt without the users knowledge, and forcing responses slanted to certain political leanings?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com