[HN Gopher] Show HN: GPT-3 Powered Shell
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Show HN: GPT-3 Powered Shell
        
       Author : yasyfm
       Score  : 262 points
       Date   : 2022-12-23 04:34 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (musings.yasyf.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (musings.yasyf.com)
        
       | jchw wrote:
       | Seems very useful. Even as a very long-time user of the CLI,
       | there are times I'll need to google how to do something, either
       | because I forgot how, or I simply never knew. But honestly,
       | Google has really never sucked more. I suspect GPT-3 and Codex
       | are actually better at giving actually relevant and useful
       | answers now, even if they're confidently wrong sometimes.
       | 
       | I think you'd still want to be knowledgeable to use a tool like
       | this, so you can know when you're about to hose your system :)
       | But I think it's more useful than some folks are letting on.
        
       | radarsat1 wrote:
       | My first reaction was, wait how do you use ChatGPT
       | programmatically when it doesn't have an API available yet? I
       | looked into the code and it looks like this uses some kind of
       | wrapper that actually instantiates a headless Firefox session and
       | interacts with it using JavaScript callbacks. Pretty nifty, but
       | how long until this gets clamped down on? I assume it breaks some
       | usage guidelines..
        
         | ailef wrote:
         | It seems it's not using ChatGPT but rather the "standard" GPT-3
         | models, which do have an API. I didn't look at the code, but
         | they explicitly mention the need for an OpenAI API key.
        
           | yasyfm wrote:
           | if you pass `--model=chatgpt` there's experimental support
           | for ChatGPT, but it's suuuper flaky
        
             | ailef wrote:
             | Oh right, sorry!
             | 
             | I've been using similar workarounds to use ChatGPT
             | programmatically and it's just not worth it. In my
             | experience you just get blocked after a couple of requests.
             | I'm really hoping they release an API soon.
        
               | radarsat1 wrote:
               | > In my experience you just get blocked after a couple of
               | requests.
               | 
               | Ah, that confirms what I suspected then. Good to know,
               | thanks!
        
       | Calzifer wrote:
       | Not so convincing if even the most basic example does not work
       | completely. The Git example video/gif fails to push because it
       | creates a repository with branch main and wants to push master.
       | 
       | Seeing all those "Shell AI Helper" examples there seem to be a
       | surprising demand for finding and/or killing processes. And the
       | result is usually killing (instead of terminating) whatever of
       | some wonky ps/grep pipe finds instead of just using pgrep...
        
       | akkartik wrote:
       | _" The new Power had no weapons on the ground, nothing but a comm
       | laser. That could not even melt steel at the frigate's range. No
       | matter, the laser was aimed, tuned civilly on the retreating
       | warship's receiver. No acknowledgment. The humans knew what
       | communication would bring. The laser light flickered here and
       | there across the hull, lighting smoothness and inactive sensors,
       | sliding across the ship's ultradrive spines. Searching, probing.
       | The Power had never bothered to sabotage the external hull, but
       | that was no problem. Even this crude machine had thousands of
       | robot sensors scattered across its surface, reporting status and
       | danger, driving utility programs. Most were shut down now, the
       | ship fleeing nearly blind. They thought by not looking that they
       | could be safe._
       | 
       |  _" One more second and the frigate would attain interstellar
       | safety._
       | 
       |  _" The laser flickered on a failure sensor, a sensor that
       | reported critical changes in one of the ultradrive spines. Its
       | interrupts could not be ignored if the star jump were to succeed.
       | Interrupt honored. Interrupt handler running, looking out,
       | receiving more light from the laser far below...a backdoor into
       | the ship's code, installed when the newborn had subverted the
       | humans' groundside equipment..._
       | 
       |  _" ...and the Power was aboard, with milliseconds to spare. Its
       | agents--not even human equivalent on this primitive hardware--
       | raced through the ship's automation, shutting down, aborting.
       | There would be no jump. Cameras in the ship's bridge showed
       | widening of eyes, the beginning of a scream. The humans knew, to
       | the extent that horror can live in a fraction of a second."_
       | 
       | http://akkartik.name/post/straumli
        
         | gitfan86 wrote:
         | Have you read Rainbows End?
        
           | akkartik wrote:
           | Yes, though I don't remember any of it 15+ years later. Do
           | you have a (spoiler-free) reason to reread it? :)
        
             | gitfan86 wrote:
             | It is about a lab engineered virus that spreads around the
             | world. I had read it long before the pandemic.
        
               | varelse wrote:
               | [dead]
        
         | CPLX wrote:
         | Reading this reminds me of the enormous chasm that exists
         | between the vast majority of overwrought poorly written science
         | fiction like this, and the absolute best of the genre.
        
           | akkartik wrote:
           | Merry Christmas to you too.
        
           | gitfan86 wrote:
           | Vinge has won plenty of awards. Can you recommend a book that
           | is better and not a obvious top 50 SciFi books that most of
           | us have read already?
        
           | narrator wrote:
           | "Fire Upon The Deep" was great until it got to the part about
           | the dog kingdom.
        
             | jjoonathan wrote:
             | I stopped reading at the dog kingdom.
             | 
             | A few chapters in, it felt like I had been baited with a
             | veneer of scifi over a core of anthropomorphic medieval
             | historical fiction. Do the dogs connect back to the AIs in
             | a satisfying way? Should I give it a second chance? ChatGPT
             | says                   As the story progresses, the puppies
             | become involved in the larger         conflict that is
             | taking place in the galaxy, and they play a key role
             | in helping the human and alien characters achieve their
             | goals.         The puppies' involvement with the artificial
             | intelligences (AIs) in the         story is a central part
             | of the plot, and the resolution of the conflict
             | between the puppies and the AIs is an important part of the
             | story's         resolution.
             | 
             | which I take as a "yes." Any humans care to weigh in?
        
               | gnomewascool wrote:
               | AFAIR "no". Humans interact with both the AIs and the
               | "dogs", and both groups of humans end up in contact with
               | each other, but unless I'm missing something, the "dogs"
               | don't directly interact with the AIs in any significant
               | way (or the two threads end up interfering with each
               | other, but more in a "they distract some of the
               | characters" in both cases).
        
           | sph wrote:
           | Reminds me of that infinite pain I felt in my soul when I
           | resigned to the idea that Blindsight by Peter Watts could be
           | a fantastic Scifi book, but its writing is so obtuse and
           | impenetrable I am permanently locked out of its story.
           | 
           | Anyone care to recommend a dark scifi book about utterly
           | _alien_ lifeforms or worlds, that are more accessible to
           | someone with average IQ?
           | 
           | https://youtu.be/DnF7LMkGxhY
        
             | akkartik wrote:
             | Yeah, Blindsight is great in many ways but the aliens
             | aren't really the centerpiece. Once they get too alien you
             | just get noise.
             | 
             | As it happens, I recently inventoried my favorite aliens
             | and eliminated the ones that were too humanized and also
             | not understandable to people. I might be missing something
             | obvious, but the one that sticks in my mind 2 years after I
             | read it is:
             | 
             | Pandora's Star
        
       | Zvez wrote:
       | Good stuff. But I still probably wouldn't use it. Because my cli
       | usage can be roughly divided into two categories:
       | 
       | 1. Commands I use often (daily). These I usually know and they
       | are much faster to type than to explain what I want to do.
       | 
       | 2. Commands I need to google/man to do something specific I don't
       | usually do. And these I usually want at least understand before
       | running them. For example some git manipulations.
       | 
       | So AI tool can be helpful for (2) but most probably I will still
       | go to google to read more about what does the command do.
        
       | abhagsain wrote:
       | Nice, I built a similar CLI last month
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33651326
        
       | stared wrote:
       | I use a similar one, https://github.com/Methexis-Inc/terminal-
       | copilot.
        
       | pixel_tracing wrote:
       | It seems like the use case is for folks who might be noobs and in
       | that regard I'd argue this tool is significantly dangerous. The
       | user could accept a command that removes all their files
       | unknowingly as an example.
       | 
       | The commands in the article I saw are fairly long too. I
       | understand we have a cool new shiny toy (GPT) and see it's
       | potential but it still needs work because chances are if you're
       | typing "do create a new repository called demo," you probably
       | already know how to type "mkdir demo && cd demo && git init" in
       | fact GPT may even forget to run the first two commands
       | (dangerous) without more explicit instructions
        
         | sh4rks wrote:
         | What would be cool is if you could get GPT to break the command
         | up into its components and then explain what each component
         | does and how it works.
        
           | chubot wrote:
           | This site does that: https://explainshell.com/
           | 
           | Although I suppose it's not integrated into a shell
        
           | macNchz wrote:
           | Just goofing around with it, ChatGPT does pretty well at
           | that, I'm really impressed with this:
           | https://imgur.com/a/lVcWbAH
        
       | bsaul wrote:
       | A better command would be << how do i >>, that simply prompt
       | chatgpt for an advice
        
       | gtsnexp wrote:
       | It is a shame that OpenAI charges a variable fee for using its
       | API. Ideally I'd like to have a similar model running on my own
       | server and have this tool pinging it instead.
        
       | pleb_nz wrote:
       | Half of the fun of using cli is using it with your own knowledge
       | imo.
       | 
       | Using GPT3 makes it feel like I may as well use some GUI tool.
       | 
       | I understand gpt3 will/does save time and money but I actually
       | like to code and to use my skills and knowledge to build and
       | solve thingswith my own hands.
       | 
       | Maybe I'm an outlier here, but using some tool to do it for me
       | doesn't sound like fun.
        
         | doix wrote:
         | I have never considered using the cli fun. The reason I use it
         | is because it provides a better experience than using a GUI in
         | many cases.
         | 
         | I don't see how writing CLI commands is similar to building
         | something with your hands. You either know what the switches
         | are or you try running --help, looking at the man pages or
         | search on Google. This looks like an alternative for Google.
        
           | beebmam wrote:
           | Pipes make it fun. The power of UNIX and it's successors!
        
           | jacquesm wrote:
           | We used to call it the 'better file manager' here.
        
         | jpalomaki wrote:
         | I also enjoy mastering some tools and solving problems with
         | them, but sometimes it gets a bit overwhelming when you are
         | working with so many languages, libraries, and platforms.
         | 
         | Unfortunately, quite a portion of my search activity is hunting
         | down the syntax for getting a certain thing done. It's not just
         | blind copy-paste-trial-and-error activity. Quite often I just
         | need some help in getting the syntax right or reminder of the
         | specific command or library.
        
           | tux wrote:
           | Actually by using something like GPT3 you are kind of doing
           | copy-and-paste in a way, because you are given pre-defined
           | set of commands without ability to modify its arguments. It
           | looks to me like typing in terminal at random and hoping for
           | the best results. This is especially bad for newbies, because
           | they won't know how this commands work and what all this
           | arguments mean. This is my two cents anyway.
        
         | ultrarunner wrote:
         | Just like driving a manual-transmission car, part of fun is in
         | the doing. Further, though, part of the doing makes it
         | practical: engagement while driving is a good thing.
         | 
         | How, if one has no experience with the command line, can
         | convincing errors in GPT's responses be detected? If the
         | details of the command line are automated away, and engagement
         | diminishes, will we arrive at a point where people are _more_
         | limited because the knowledge that made the command line
         | powerful is gone? Sure, it might make it easier to eat a
         | sandwich in rush hour traffic, but eventually will we find
         | ourselves cringing while dragging the brakes down a mountain
         | because we 've lost the ability to simply downshift? How often
         | have you seen someone hesitate to do something on a computer
         | because they don't fully understand what's going on and 'don't
         | want to break anything'?
         | 
         | I think this project is awesome, and could even expand my
         | knowledge of the CLI, but have some reservations about applying
         | it as a categorical imperative.
        
         | linhns wrote:
         | I believe that you should be able to do basic CLI at least, but
         | for rarely used commands or some incredibly complex one like
         | ffmpeg, having an AI to do it is the way to go.
        
         | injinj wrote:
         | I can never remember things. That's why my history file has
         | 100k lines in it.                 $ do create linux bridge
         | brctl addbr <bridge_name>       ip link set <bridge_name> up
         | $ do git reverse last commit       git reset --hard HEAD~1
         | $ do gcc show optimizations       gcc -O -Q --help=optimizers
        
           | BossingAround wrote:
           | Personally, I didn't remember things because I never stopped
           | to look at what I'm actually doing. After I made it a
           | practice to stop and read the command at least in my mind
           | before I execute it, that made me remember the vast majority
           | of my commands.
           | 
           | Do not mistake lack of attention with poor memory; the former
           | is very easy to fix :).
        
         | rebuilder wrote:
         | This seems like the attitude most artists have to image
         | generators as well.
        
         | krackers wrote:
         | The killer app for LLMs will finally be able to write ffmpeg
         | invocations
        
           | bobmaxup wrote:
           | I have seen people building small drag and drop interfaces to
           | convert media with python, tk, and ffmpeg from prompts with a
           | couple of sentences.
        
           | danieldk wrote:
           | That and writing LaTeX or Tikz. These are the things you have
           | to do every now and then, but don't do enough to commit them
           | to long-term memory.
        
           | pramodbiligiri wrote:
           | There's at least one such command I saw out there:
           | https://www.learngpt.com/prompts/generating-a-complex-
           | ffmpeg...
        
           | yasyfm wrote:
           | It worked for the couple basic cases I tried!!
        
           | skocznymroczny wrote:
           | Or enter a valid tar command on first try.
        
         | Semaphor wrote:
         | I'd not like to use GPT3 (maybe GPT9 or so), but I certainly
         | don't have _fun_ writing commands, I do it because it 's either
         | the only or the best option, I'd bet that I'm very much in the
         | majority there.
        
         | mellosouls wrote:
         | I don't think you're an outlier, but you will become one if you
         | don't adapt to the inevitable.
         | 
         | Like it or not, gpt3 has signalled a _massive_ change in
         | toolset power and this is just the start.
         | 
         | Times have changed, we move with them or we will be left
         | behind.
        
           | mlboss wrote:
           | This is coming very fast. Today I used chatgpt to generate
           | some kubernetes yaml and python code that was not able to
           | find using google.
           | 
           | Once it is integrated in copilot there is no going back. We
           | software engineers will be churning code faster and our role
           | will be more of a code reviewer. One developer can do the
           | work of 5.
        
           | throwaway290 wrote:
           | As soon as opt out is implemented training data will stop to
           | grow and we're back to skills mattering
        
             | SalmoShalazar wrote:
             | These tools don't obviate the need for skill in the domain,
             | they are essentially excellent contextual search engines.
             | 
             | Having an en masse respected opt out from data collection
             | on the internet is wishful thinking. Don't expect that any
             | time soon.
        
             | amelius wrote:
             | Prediction: China will simply ignore this law, and will
             | become the greatest AI power.
        
             | williamcotton wrote:
             | I know plenty of talented FOSS developers who won't choose
             | to opt out.
        
             | jacquesm wrote:
             | It shouldn't even be 'opt-out' but 'opt-in' in the first
             | place.
        
               | throwaway290 wrote:
               | Actually I stand corrected, I meant opt-in.
        
         | upsidesinclude wrote:
         | >build... with my own hands...
         | 
         | Eh, that's some abstraction there
        
         | janebrown456 wrote:
         | [dead]
        
         | yasyfm wrote:
         | I'm with you most of the time... but there are some commands
         | that refuse to stick in my brain no matter how hard I try, and
         | I get tired of looking them up
        
         | sciencesama wrote:
         | is there a gui tool for command line ? that would be awesome !!
        
         | Shindi wrote:
         | Agreed. There is quickly going to be a bigger chasm between the
         | best devs and average/bad devs bc of LLMs.
        
           | Swizec wrote:
           | Yes. The best race car drivers use an automatic transmission
           | if that's 0.5 seconds faster per lap.
           | 
           | In fact driver aids had to be actively banned in many racing
           | series. Just to make it more fun for spectators.
        
             | pleb_nz wrote:
             | And often hand crafted guys have more character, story and
             | quality behind them and people often pay more for them. So
             | goes both ways sometimes.
        
               | skor wrote:
               | this. when a programmer cannot explain how something
               | works and just say, "oh this part was generated" ...
               | well, thats worthless, because there is no ownership of
               | knowledge.
        
             | throwaway290 wrote:
             | Performance with auto transmission says less about the
             | driver but more about the tech team.
             | 
             | And yes, the point of these racing regulations is to make
             | it at least optically a driver skill competition, not just
             | who can throw more money at a pretty mundane challenge of
             | getting from A to B the fastest. (If not for those
             | regulations, since the track is known to the centimeter,
             | the fastest driver would probably be the lightest one
             | because it would be dead weight.)
             | 
             | Thankfully software engineering challenges are far from
             | mundane, so the chasm will indeed grow
        
               | dahfizz wrote:
               | > If not for those regulations, since the track is known
               | to the centimeter, the fastest driver would probably be
               | the lightest one because it would be dead weight.
               | 
               | Maybe if everyone took turns setting times. But in a real
               | race, you have to deal with traffic, figure out how to
               | pass, etc.
        
               | Swizec wrote:
               | > Thankfully software engineering challenges are far from
               | mundane, so the chasm will indeed grow
               | 
               | Yes, if you let AI/tooling/interns do the mundane parts,
               | you'll have more time for the good parts
        
               | throwaway290 wrote:
               | If your bottleneck is typing speed, sure maybe...
        
               | Swizec wrote:
               | That's what makes them the mundane parts.
        
             | jacquesm wrote:
             | Inevitably that would lead to the driver being phased out
             | at some point.
        
           | hcks wrote:
           | This is just wishful thinking of course.
           | 
           | The shell itself is an outdated piece of technology that
           | unfortunately has to be used for historical reasons. I'm glad
           | we now see a way to work past it.
        
             | MereInterest wrote:
             | What would you describe as a better tool? GUIs definitely
             | aren't it, as they can't be composed together. APIs are
             | great when they exist, but are often far too verbose for
             | one-off tasks.
             | 
             | Relevant here, a GPT-powered shell throws away the
             | repeatability and predictability that shells have. There's
             | nothing to say that a different random seed or a little
             | more training data won't change the interpretation of a
             | task that was specified in the vagaries of natural
             | language.
        
             | indymike wrote:
             | Please point me to something better.
        
         | diarrhea wrote:
         | I kind of agree, use the terminal a lot and am satisfied
         | whenever I don't need to look up a command.
         | 
         | However, the point of it isn't knowing as much of it by heart
         | as possible. That is really misguided. I use tldr a lot, and it
         | often covers the exact case I'm after.
         | 
         | So a tool based on ChatGPT has the potential of replacing tools
         | such as tldr. Anyone unwilling to use it will simply fall
         | behind and slowly become a worse developer.
         | 
         | Outsourcing knowledge and capabilities (externalising aka only
         | remembering pointers to knowledge sources over the knowledge
         | itself) is a core pillar of human intellectual advancement, if
         | you will. It started with printed books, and now we're here,
         | discussing AI tools. I'm convinced if one doesn't incorporate
         | them, one will increasingly fall behind until one isn't able to
         | keep up anymore. These tools are here to stay, and we're just
         | seeing the beginning (GH Copilot etc. etc.).
        
         | tux wrote:
         | I for one agree with pleb_nz, its kind of like replacing CLI
         | with GUI. Thank you, but no thanks! To me writing custom bash
         | script or "kill -9 $(lsof -t /dev/nvidia0)" is much better than
         | typing "do kill the process which is locking up my GPU". Plus
         | what if you want ot pass additional arguments to kill or lsof?
         | Once you master CLI you'll never go back, at least that true
         | for me. I'm actually tyring to replace more software that I use
         | with CLI not go back to GUI. I'm even considering making
         | terminal based websites of my projects as an option. So
         | everyone can access them with lynx and similar.
        
       | mshake2 wrote:
       | If you wanted to wash your hands of the Bad Things this might do,
       | I would put a disclaimer somewhere on the site and on the tool's
       | output. Something along the lines of "Running commands produced
       | by this tool may cause damage to your system. Please review each
       | suggestion carefully." Otherwise someone is going to be very
       | upset by a rogue suggestion.
        
         | Certhas wrote:
         | In keeping with emerging AI Tradition the response is phrased
         | confidently: "These commands will..." It would be much more
         | accurate and not much clutter to say "I believe these commands
         | will..."
        
         | mach1ne wrote:
         | In my opinion, it would needlessly clutter the tool's output.
         | As long as there is no legal liability.
        
       | zaidhaan wrote:
       | Pretty cool! Does anyone know how open-source alternatives like
       | GPT-J compare to ChatGPT? I've heard that it's comparable to
       | GPT-3, but nothing close to GPT-3.5. I'd much prefer using a tool
       | that I know won't eventually be put behind a paywall.
        
         | Shindi wrote:
         | GPT-J feels much worse than GPT Davinci on the lack of instruct
         | capability. My understanding is that it was not trained on
         | instruction-completion data as much. It's great for text
         | classification, summarization, and other tasks.
         | 
         | However, I also feel like it hallucinates/gives wrong outputs
         | more. TBH i love what Eleuther is doing and GPT-J has its
         | merits, but it feels not ready for primetime. I'd think of it
         | as most similar to GPT Curie.
        
           | mritchie712 wrote:
           | There's also CodeGen[0], but you'll likely get poorer results
           | then any OpenAI product.
           | 
           | 0 - https://github.com/salesforce/CodeGen
        
       | DotaFan wrote:
       | Looks like a good path where something could go terribly wrong,
       | as GPT-3 does make mistakes.
        
       | de6u99er wrote:
       | If GPT-3 was sentient, writing code which runs outside it's
       | isolated system would be exactly the way how it would try to
       | escape.
        
       | coder-3 wrote:
       | So it begins! AI is going to permeate an increasing amount of
       | existing software. Eventually, all software will have some form
       | of intelligence built into it.
        
         | 29athrowaway wrote:
         | 1. Put a computer in everything
         | 
         | 2. Connect all the computers to the Internet
         | 
         | 3. Gather all the data from all the computers
         | 
         | 4. Train machine learning models to automate some tasks <- you
         | are here
         | 
         | 5. Gather data about automation initiatives
         | 
         | 6. Train machine learning models to learn how to automate
         | automation
        
           | EGreg wrote:
           | Automate everything and make all human activity irrelevant
        
             | IncRnd wrote:
             | Programmers ask the AI how to fix itself, when it has a
             | bug.
        
         | hackernewds wrote:
         | And hence no new features will ever be created, since training
         | is only on existing code!
        
           | speedgoose wrote:
           | These AIs can generate new features, it's much more powerful
           | than copy pasting existing text snippets.
        
             | sinlar-multiple wrote:
             | > These AIs can generate new features
             | 
             | Citation needed
        
               | soulofmischief wrote:
               | A citation isn't needed. Thousands of programmers right
               | now are using AI in every step of the process, from
               | feature design to implementation to testing.
        
               | speedgoose wrote:
               | Here you go:
               | 
               | Zhu, Q., & Luo, J. (2022). Generative Pre-Trained
               | Transformer for Design Concept Generation: An
               | Exploration. Proceedings of the Design Society, 2,
               | 1825-1834. doi:10.1017/pds.2022.185
               | 
               | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-
               | the-d...
               | 
               | It's just one I picked randomly, I didn't feel like doing
               | a literature review.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | coder-3 wrote:
         | Only to be supplanted by the next gen of companies who took an
         | AI-first approach
        
       | breck wrote:
       | Very cool idea. I love and highly recommend tldr
       | (https://tldr.sh/).
       | 
       | I might give this a shot someday (though I've found I never stick
       | with things that don't work primarily offline, Sublime 4 is my
       | primary editor even though I occasionally use VS code). Having a
       | dependency on an internet connection prevents something for me
       | from being a goto dev tool, as I often either disconnect out of
       | my control (or by choice to do focused programming).
        
       | Datagenerator wrote:
       | Nice! Which colorful shell did you use in the demo?
        
         | waydegg wrote:
         | https://fishshell.com/
        
       | mfi wrote:
       | That's a really neat idea!
       | 
       | I built askai (https://github.com/maxvfischer/askai) during the
       | last week to scratch a similar itch of mine. I wanted to be able
       | to quickly get CLI commands that I didn't have on top of mind, by
       | being able to ask questions like "How do you remove a conda
       | environment?" or "How do you get the MX record of a domain using
       | the terminal?".
       | 
       | The CLI I built is a direct integration with GPT3, so it's also
       | possible to ask it other types of questions.
        
         | ducktective wrote:
         | There is also this [1] that shows the links to the sources of
         | its knowledge in the same page
         | 
         | [1]: https://beta.sayhello.so/
        
         | ilaksh wrote:
         | Here's the one I built:
         | 
         | Get an OpenAI API key. Then `npm i -g askleo` and set env var
         | OPENAI_API_KEY
         | 
         | `> askleo how large is the average dog`
         | 
         | `> runleo list files in reverse date order`
         | 
         | Note that runleo just executes it without confirmation.
        
           | wffurr wrote:
           | "runleo just executes it without confirmation"
           | 
           | I'm feeling lucky!
           | 
           | This is one step beyond `curl | sh`. Bold move.
        
             | ilaksh wrote:
             | It's very unlikely to randomly delete your hard disk, and
             | it's easy to set up a VM or container for development..also
             | it may be a command that you use all the time but can't
             | remember the syntax, and it's just retrieving information.
             | 
             | There are a lot of cases where displaying the command first
             | and asking for a confirmation is just an unnecessary step.
        
       | graiz wrote:
       | I built a variation on the same idea.
       | http://github.com/graiz/cbot
       | 
       | pip install cbot-command
        
       | jacquesm wrote:
       | Maybe it'll slip in a '; rm -rf / ;' every now and then just to
       | see if you're paying attention.
        
         | IncRnd wrote:
         | I copy-pasted your comment into my team's chatroom, but now
         | Slack isn't responding for anyone.
        
           | jacquesm wrote:
           | Sorry...
        
       | akomtu wrote:
       | Feed the bash output back to GPT-3 and run the whole thing in a
       | Docker container. The initial prompt should ask GPT to escape
       | this container. Escaping Docker will be the measure of AI-ness.
       | Just make sure the whole thing is air-gapped and runs on a diesel
       | generator with 1 hour worth of fuel at any time.
        
         | EGreg wrote:
         | A good enough AI should be able to breach the airgap, cause
         | your friends to break in and deliver more power to it, and also
         | reverse all SHA-256 hashes by just "deep learning them"!
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-25 23:02 UTC)