Hacker News Reader

Comment by dorkwood | Hacker News Reader

I feel vindicated reading this. Yesterday in a separate thread I claimed that it was wrong on 80% of the coding problems I gave it, and received the response from multiple readers that I was probably phrasing my questions poorly.

I started to believe them, too. Unfortunately, my brain is structured in such a way that a unanimous verdict from a few strangers is enough to make me think I’m probably the one who’s wrong. I need to make note of these events as a way to remind myself that this isn’t always the case.

View on HN

I think part of the issue is that your mileage will vary greatly depending on what your problem domain and language of choice is. People working with languages and problems chatgpt works well in have a hard time believing the hard fails in other domains and vice versa. I wrote a python script the other day to delete some old xcode devices lower than a certain ios version complete witth options with a just a few back and forths with chatGPT. My knowledge of python is extremely basic and the code just worked out of the box. Then yesterday I asked for the code to tell if a device is lidar enabled in Objective-C and it failed to give me compilable code 4 times in a row until I finally gave up and went back to the docs. The correct answer is one line. I for one am pretty excited about this, things that a lot of people have done before should be easy, leaves more brain space for the tough stuff.

What was the answer, if you don't mind? ChatGPT (3.5) days to use isCollaborationEnabled on the ARWorldTrackingConfiguration class which doesn't seem quite right based on the docs.

I wonder if this is a GI/GO problem. Apple's poor documentation of features being the garbage in.

Sure, this was what I ended up using:

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/arworldtrack...

I believe there are multiple ways, part of the problem might be Apple doing the Apple thing where their user philosophy bleeds into their tech. They don't want you checking for a specific sensor or device capability they want you to check if whatever feature you want is enabled.

Vindicated and excited. Gradient descent is likely not enough. I love it when we get closer to something but are still missing the answer. I would be very happy if "add more parameters and compute" isn't enough to get us to AGI. It means you need talent to get there, and money alone will not suffice. Bad news for OpenAI and other big firms, good news for science and the curious.

I imagine physicists got very excited with things like the ultraviolet catastrophe, and the irreconcilable nature of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It's these mysteries that keep the world exciting.

There's something ironic about implying that us not having a path to AGI is good news for the curious. If you're supervisiously curious then sure, we need to unlock another piece of a puzzle, more puzzle pieces means more puzzle solving.

But if you're able to actually take a step back, AGI would be the the ultimate source of new puzzles for the curious. We don't even all agree on how to define the "GI", approaching AGI wouldn't be unlike meeting extraterrestrial life sitting on a computer.

I think you misunderstood the parent, who was probably saying that the process for achieving AGI would be more interesting if it isn't just "more compute/training".

I think you misunderstood me since that's exactly my point.

From the trees, it's great for the curious that it might take more than compute and training.

From the forest, it'd be infinitely preferable if AGI were just a matter of more money. There are mysteries we can't even envision yet that would more than make up for any "lost curiosity"

Al right, all right, but to me the implication was that only those who have ludicrous amounts of money would be able to play with it. And I don't think that's the most desirable outcome, is it?

Woah. I've never seen someone so self aware of the asch conformity test without literally talking about the asch conformity test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Easiest fix for that is show the prompt you gave and the output you want. Force the people who tell you it's easy to actually do it. You'll get one of 3 outcomes.

-They try then fail (you were right) -They try then succeed (you learn) -They keep telling you it's easy but don't demonstrate. (You know that this person is full of it and you can ignore them in future)

Yup, always drill down and get/provide more context for when something doesn't align/seems fishy.

I've found WAYYYY too many of my issues were really just communications issues. Shits hard to navigate socially.

That said, mind sharing the specific tasks/prompts gpt-4 failed you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com