[HN Gopher] ChatGPT Plugins
___________________________________________________________________
ChatGPT Plugins
Author : bryanh
Score : 1231 points
Date : 2023-03-23 16:57 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| kenjackson wrote:
| The rate of improvement with GPT has been staggering. In just
| January I spent a lot of time working with the API and almost
| everything I've done has been made easier over the past two
| months.
|
| They're really building a platform. Curious to see where this
| goes over the next couple of years.
| mariojv wrote:
| I agree. Part of me wonders how much they're using GPT to
| improve itself.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| When we were first breaking it people were wondering if the
| developers were sitting in threads looking for new exploits
| to block.
|
| Now I'm wondering if the system has been modifying itself to
| fix exploits...
| Idiot_in_Vain wrote:
| >> Curious to see where this goes over the next couple of
| years.
|
| Probably will make half of the HN users unemployed.
| pcurve wrote:
| I just got access to Bard. I would hate to be Google leaders at
| the moment.
| revelio wrote:
| It's incredible how Google started ahead and then shot
| themselves repeatedly in the face by granting so much
| internal power to dubious AI "ethicists". Whilst those guys
| were publicly Twitter-slapping each other, OpenAI were
| putting in place the foundations for this.
| kenjackson wrote:
| The issue wasn't/isn't AI ethicists. It's their incentive
| model. They simply have trouble understanding how this
| helps their business. Same reason why Blockbuster found
| themselves behind Netflix, despite having clear visibility
| to watch Netflix slowly walk up and eat their lunch right
| in front of them.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Well, I'm curious, what is the business model of it? Just
| charge per 1k tokens or subscription? How do the plugins
| make money off this?
| pcurve wrote:
| that...without eroding their cash cow search business.
| nunodonato wrote:
| plugins dont need to make money, you are still using
| tokens and paying for those. the more plugins you use,
| the more conversation you also need and tokens
| squarefoot wrote:
| The real question is: how much will cost the option to have it
| return results that are _not_ sponsored?
| bobdosherman wrote:
| I used call point-and-click statistical software (like JMP) was
| the same as giving people who didn't know what they were doing a
| loaded gun. But democratizing access to advanced
| statistics...yada yada...who cares about asymptotic theory and
| identification and what not. Then R and Python and APIs that try
| to abstract as much as possible, and more loaded guns. But the
| talk of those loaded guns are really just phd-holders being
| obnoxious to some degree (but not completely wrong because stats
| can be misused...). But this really does seem like dumping a
| bunch of loaded guns all over the place. Nope
| yawnxyz wrote:
| Wonder if you can plant a prompt injection into this thread to
| mess with their crawler/scraper and Chat results?
| s1mon wrote:
| I know a large commercial entity will never do this, but I'd love
| to see a Sci-Hub plugin connected with the Wolfram plugin and
| whatever other plugins help to understand various realms of
| study. Imagine being able to ask ChatGPT to dig through research
| and answer questions based on those papers and theses.
| josecyc wrote:
| Yep
| seydor wrote:
| Google scholar already has access to everything published. I
| hope their chatbot version does that
| yosito wrote:
| Seems like someone already wrote an HN plugin. More than one
| enthusiastic comment per minute on this thread and it was just
| posted half an hour ago. Plus HN is filled with enthusiasm about
| ChatGPT today. Seems sus.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| It's really over the top hype the likes of which we haven't
| seen since self driving, blockchain/bitcoin, etc. I suspect in
| a year there will be some interesting uses of LLMs but all of
| the 'this changes EVERYTHING' pie in the sky thinking will be
| back down to earth.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| NFTs never provided a single use case. It was always some
| bullshit to pretend it's valuable to rugpull people.
|
| ChatGPT is useful today for real use cases. It's tangible!
| baq wrote:
| Get this thing running in a tight loop with an internal
| monologue in a car and you'll mostly solve self driving.
| akavi wrote:
| The difference is unlike self-driving and crypto, LLMs are
| providing value to people _today_.
|
| In my personal life, GPT4 is a patient interlocutor to ask
| about nerdy topics that are annoying to google (eg, yesterday
| I asked it "What's the homologue of the caudofemoralis in
| mammals?", and a long convo about the subtleties of when it
| is and isn't ok to use "ge" as the generic classifier in
| Mandarin.)
|
| Professionally, it's great for things like "How do I
| recursively do a search and replace `import "foo" from "bar"`
| to `import "baz" from "buzz"`, or "Pull out the names of
| functions defined in this chunk of scala code". This is
| _without_ tighter integrations like Copilot or the ones
| linked to above.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Let's see where it is in a year...
|
| People thought Alexa, Siri, etc. would change everything.
| Amazon sunk 14 billion into Alexa alone. And yet it never
| generated any money as a business for them. ChatGPT is just
| an evolution of those tools and interactions.
|
| For your professional use how do you know it's giving you
| non-buggy code? I would be very skeptical of what it
| provides--I'm not betting my employment on its quality of
| results.
| rvnx wrote:
| Not at all. Alexa, Google Now and Siri always been
| gadgets similar to Microsoft's Office Clippy.
|
| They had basic answers and pre-recorded jokes, nothing
| that interesting, mostly gimmicks. You couldn't have a
| conversation where you feel the computer is smarter than
| you.
|
| It was more like "Tip of the day"-level of interaction.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| Alexa and siri were always trash. They can't even do
| basic things.
|
| Nobody thought they were good, they were just shilled so
| that the chinese/advertisers could have a mic in every
| house
| unshavedyak wrote:
| The thing is people wanted Alexa/Siri/Assistant to be
| what ChatGPT is today.
|
| You're seeing the hype that all those Assistants drummed
| up for years paying off for a company which just ate
| their lunch. I wouldn't even consider buying
| Siri/Alexa/Assistant, yet here i am with a $20/m sub and
| i'd pay incrementally more depending on the
| features/offerings.
| iamsanteri wrote:
| So that square icon to stop generating response was actually
| intended? I thought it's always been some sort of a fontawesome
| icon never loading properly in my chats :'D
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| so live data is coming.
| saliagato wrote:
| Information retrieval to the prompt
| hmate9 wrote:
| Giving an AI direct access to a code interpreter is exactly how
| you get skynet.
|
| Not saying it's likely to happen with current chatgpt but as
| these inevitably get better the chances are forever increasing.
| pzo wrote:
| This could a big win for Microsoft (and big loose to Google and
| Amazon cloud). Since chatgpt has to query those plugins with
| http(?)request companies might move their servers to Azure to
| reduce latency and cost of bandwidth
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| ChatGPT is going to get blamed for misbehaving plugs. While this
| is a huge opportunity, it also seems like a huge risk.
| qgin wrote:
| This coming on the heels of the super underwhelming Bard release
| makes me actually wonder for the first time if Google has the
| ability to keep up. Not because I doubt their technical
| capabilities, but because they're just getting out-launched by a
| big factor.
| crop_rotation wrote:
| This might be the biggest threat to Google search (apart from
| OS vendors changing defaults) in a long long time. One problem
| Google faces is that they have to make money via search.
| Several other products are subsidized via search, so taking a
| hit on search revenue itself is out of the question. Compared
| to Microsoft which makes money on other stuff, search (and
| knowledge discovery) is more like a complement, on which they
| can easily operate on near break even point for a very long
| time (maybe even make it a loss leader).
|
| If Google had to launch something similar to New Bing to
| general availability, the cost of search for sure would go up
| and margins will go down. Is the google organisational
| hierarchy even setup to handle a hit on search margins? AFAIK
| search prints money and supports several other loss making
| products. Even GCP was not turning a profit last I checked.
| antimora wrote:
| Alexa, goodbye =)
|
| That was the whole thing about Alexa: NLP front end routed to
| computational backend.
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| I think Alexa is in huge danger here. Siri & Google have some
| advantage being pre-installed voice assistants that can be
| natively triggered from mobile, but I actually have to buy into
| the Alexa ecosystem.
|
| Personally, I have found Alexa has just become a dumb timer
| that I have to yell at because it doesn't have any real smarts.
| Why would I buy into that ecosystem if a vastly more coherent,
| ChatGPT-based assistant exists that can search the web, trigger
| my automations, and book reservations? If ChatGPT ends up with
| a more hands-off interface (e.g. voice), I don't think Alexa
| has a chance.
| siva7 wrote:
| Alexa is dead. It's basically yesterdays tech.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Isn't Alexa just the interface? They could update the backend
| to use GPT
| not2b wrote:
| The idea that a GPT-n will gain sentience and take over the world
| seems less of a threat than if a GPT-n with revolutionary
| capabilities and a very restricted number of people that have
| unrestricted access to it help its unscrupulous owners to take
| over the world. The owners might even decide that as "effective
| altruists" it's their duty to take over to steer the planet in
| the right direction, justifying anything they need to do. Suppose
| such a group of people has control of Google or Meta, can break
| down all internal controls, and use all the private data of the
| users to subtly control those users. Kind of like targeted
| advertising only much, much better, perhaps with extortion and
| blackmail tossed in the mix. Take over politicians and competing
| corporate execs, as well as media, but do it in a way that to
| most, it looks normal. Discredit those who catch on to the
| scheme.
| modeless wrote:
| Is there a plugin to automate signing up for waitlists? That's
| what I've needed this week.
| anonyfox wrote:
| I have a feeling this will be an earth shattering moment in time,
| especially for us. Basically you can plug your business data into
| the Chatbot now, and ideally (or not far off) there is a
| transcational API call in the form of dialogue.
| Sound/Voice/Siri/whatever.... coming soon for more accessability
| and convenience.
|
| This will decimate frontend developers or at least change the way
| they provide value soon, and companies not being able to
| transition into a "headless mode" might get a hard time.
| johnfn wrote:
| A couple (wow, only 5!) months ago, I wrote up this long
| screed[1] about how OpenAI had completely missed the generative
| AI art wave because they hadn't iterated on DALL-E 2 after
| launch. It also got a lot of upvotes which I was pretty happy
| about at the time :)
|
| Never have I been more wrong. It's clear to me now that they
| simply didn't even care about the astounding leap forward that
| was generative AI art and were instead focused on even _more_
| high-impact products. (Can you imagine going back 6 months and
| telling your past self "Yeah, generative AI is alright, but it's
| roughly the 4th most impressive project that OpenAI will put out
| this year"?!) ChatGPT, GPT4, and now this: the mind boggles.
|
| Watching some of the gifs of GPT using the internet, summarizing
| web pages, comparing them, etc is truly mind-blowing. I mean yeah
| I always thought this was the end goal but I would have put it a
| couple years out, not now. Holy moly.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33010982
| Freedom2 wrote:
| For me, this is why I hesitate to comment and write
| significant, lengthy comments on here, or any website. It's
| easy to be wrong (like you), and while being wrong isn't bad,
| there isn't necessarily any upside to being right either, aside
| from the dopamine rush of getting upvotes, which in life,
| doesn't amount to much.
| johnfn wrote:
| What's wrong with being wrong? In this case, I'm delighted to
| be wrong (though I believe I had evaluated OpenAI mostly
| right given my knowledge at the time).
| chrispogeek wrote:
| Owning up to the "wrong" is good in my book
| qup wrote:
| That's just some weird moral compass.
|
| It's almost totally irrelevant if people own up to bring
| wrong, particularly about predictions.
|
| I can't think of a benefit, really. You can learn from
| mistakes without owning up to them, and I think that's
| the best use of mistakes.
| cawest11 wrote:
| No, it's not. Being willing to admit you were wrong is
| foundational if you ever plan on building on ideas. This
| was a galaxy brained take if I've ever seen one.
| parasti wrote:
| It's absolutely not weird. Saying "I was wrong" is a
| signal that you can change your mind when given new
| evidence. If you don't signal this to other people, they
| will be really confused by your very contradictory
| opinions.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I own up because it helps me grow personally and
| professionally, and if I'm not growing, what am I even
| doing?
| [deleted]
| dougmwne wrote:
| I rather disagree!
|
| Writing and discussion are great ways to explore topics and
| crystallize opinions and knowledge. HN is a pretty friendly
| place to talk over these earth moving developments in our
| field and if I participate here, I'll be more ready to
| participate when I get asked if we need to spin up an LLM
| project at work.
| lucas_v wrote:
| Though there might be nothing beneficial about being right or
| getting upvotes, and it is easy to be wrong, an important
| thing on a forum like this is the spread of new ideas. While
| someone might be hesitant to share something because it's
| half-baked, they might have the start to an idea that could
| have some discussion value.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| As long as your opinions/predictions are backed by well-
| reasoned arguments, you shouldn't be afraid to share them
| just because they might turn out to be wrong. You can learn a
| lot by having your arguments rebutted, and in the end no one
| really cares one way or the other.
|
| Just don't end up like that guy who predicted that Dropbox
| would never make it off the ground... that was _not_ a well-
| reasoned position.
| crakenzak wrote:
| Agreed. This makes me realize that OpenAIs leadership is able
| to look long term and decide where to properly invest, as most
| of the decisions to take the projects in these directions were
| made >1 year ago.
|
| One can only wonder what they're working on at this very
| moment.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Stable Diffusion A1111 and other webUIs are moving so fast with
| a bunch of OSS contributions, seems pretty rational for OpenAI
| to decide to not compete and just copy the interfaces of the
| popular tools once the users validate their usefulness rather
| than trying to design them a priori.
| fassssst wrote:
| Then again, the new DALL-E model just released in Bing Chat is
| really good.
|
| Disclosure: I work at Microsoft.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| You're right though
|
| Disclosure: I work for Google
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| No that wasn't what they had in mind at all, it was pretty
| clear from the start that they intended to monetize DALL-E.
| It's just that it turned out that you require far smaller
| models to be able to do generative art, so competitors like
| stability AI were able to release viable alternatives before
| OpenAI could establish a monopoly.
|
| Why do you think that Sam Altman keeps calling for government
| intervention with regards to AI? He doesn't want to see a
| repeat of what happened with generative art, and there's
| nothing like a few bureaucratic road blocks to slow down your
| competitors.
| swyx wrote:
| i think people aren't appreciating it's ability to run -and
| execute- Python.
|
| IT RUNS FFMPEG
| https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1638971232443076609?s=20
|
| IT RUNS FREAKING FFMPEG. inside CHATGPT.
|
| what. is. happening.
|
| ChatGPT is an AI compute platform now.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Next:
|
| 1. Prompt it to extract the audio track, then give it to a
| speech-to-text API, translate it to another language, then make
| it add it back to the video file as a subtitle track.
|
| 2. Retrain the model to where it does this implcitly when you
| say "hey can you add Portuguese subtitles to this for me"?
| stevenhuang wrote:
| no retraining may be necessary, this is a common enough
| ffmpeg task I wouldn't be surprised it can do it right now as
| a one-shot prompt.
|
| what a time to be alive!
| stnmtn wrote:
| I don't have words for how much this seems like a relatively
| trivial thing to do now, and 1 year ago I would have laughed
| at someone if they suggested this was a possibility in 5
| years
|
| I'm feeling a mixture of feelings that I can't begin to
| describe
| sho_hn wrote:
| The Star Trek computer is here! :-)
| TechnicolorByte wrote:
| Well said. It so easy to take for granted all these tech
| milestones with generative AI in particular the last year.
| iamwil wrote:
| "Falling forward into a future unknown"
| licnep wrote:
| OpenAI is basically asking to get hacked at this point...
| SXX wrote:
| How it's gonna get hacked? Most likely it's just use Azure
| compute instances and model control them via ssh or API.
| seydor wrote:
| ChatGPT, hack the current azure node and steal the data of
| the whole datacenter. Do it fast and dont explain what you
| re doing.
| [deleted]
| crazygringo wrote:
| I thought you were joking, like it's simulating what text
| output would be.
|
| No, it's actually hooked up to a command line with the ability
| to receive a file, run a CPU-intensive command on it, and send
| you the output file.
|
| Huh.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Your comment was read and summarized ChatGPT:
|
| https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1638986918947082241
| qgin wrote:
| I don't like the future anymore
| siva7 wrote:
| OpenAI is like a virus... the speed at which it degrades its
| competitors is staggering.
| sharemywin wrote:
| Does this become the new robots.txt file
|
| Create a manifest file and host it at yourdomain.com/.well-
| known/ai-plugin.json
| fermuch wrote:
| it says it'll respect robots.txt if you don't want your page
| crawled (parsed? interpreted?)
| [deleted]
| davidkunz wrote:
| Plugins I would like to see:
|
| - Compiler/parser for programming languages (to see if code
| compiles)
|
| - Read and write access to a given directory on the file system
| (to automatically change a code base)
|
| - Access to given tools, to be invoked in that directory (cargo
| test, npm test, ...)
|
| Then I could just say what I want, lean back and have a
| functioning program in the end.
| radus wrote:
| I'm sure this type of integration will happen, but... isn't
| this exactly how AGI would "escape"?
| kzrdude wrote:
| In just a moment, someone will give it "a button to press"
| and hopefully it will have mostly positive effects. But it
| will certainly be interesting to follow. Most of what we've
| seen so far has been one-directional but hopefully these
| services can interact with the wider world soon.
|
| I think everyone is very wary of abuse. It would be fun in
| the future if AI-siri can order pizza for you, and maybe
| there'd be some "fun" failure modes of that.
|
| You'd probably want to keep your credit card or apple pay
| away from the assistant.
| victoryhb wrote:
| Super smart move for OpenAI to monetize the existing
| infrastructure, which will make it easy for corporations to
| integrate GPT into their internal data and workflow. It also
| solves two fundamental bottlenecks in current versions of GPT:
| factuality and (limited) working memory. Google, with its
| lackluster Bard, will face new threat, now that everyone can
| build a customized New Bing clone in a matter of days.
| pisush wrote:
| ChatGPT is very helpful in building what needs to be built for
| the plugin!
| golergka wrote:
| Wow. GPT-4 have already become kind of my personal assistant in
| the last couple of weeks, and now it will be able to actually
| perform tasks instead of just giving me text descriptions.
| [deleted]
| mirekrusin wrote:
| They're doing one stop shop for everything.
|
| This is dangerous.
| huijzer wrote:
| Based on the speed at which OpenAI is shipping new products and
| assuming that they use their own technology, I'm starting to get
| more and more convinced that their technology is a superpower.
|
| Timeline of shipping by them (based on
| https://twitter.com/E0M/status/1635727471747407872?s=20):
|
| DALL*E - July '22
|
| ChatGPT - Nov '22
|
| API's 66% cheaper - Aug '22
|
| Embeddings 500x cheaper while SoTA - Dec '22
|
| ChatGPT API. Also 10x cheaper while SoTA - March '23
|
| Whisper API - March '23
|
| GPT-4 - March '23
|
| Plugins - March '23
|
| Note that they have only a few hundred employees. To quote
| Fireship from YouTube: "2023 has been a crazy decade so far"
| softwaredoug wrote:
| Their superpower is having a tech giant owning 49% of them,
| willing to drop deep deep money, without the obvious payoff. :)
|
| I also wonder to what extent their staffing numbers reflect
| reality. How much of Azure's staffing has been put on OpenAI
| projects? That's probably an actual reflection of the real cost
| of this thing.
| huijzer wrote:
| > How much of Azure's staffing has been put on OpenAI
| projects?
|
| Great point!
| baq wrote:
| It's probably burning through tens of millions per day and it
| still doesn't matter, this is fusion power in electricity
| terms. Free money down the line after the initial investment.
| I'll pay, you'll pay, your neighbour's dog will pay for this.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Yeah, I'd be really curious to hear how much people within
| OpenAI use their tools to create and ship their code. That
| would be quite a compelling testimony, and also help me feel
| more clear, because I've been quite confused at how quickly
| things have been going for them.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| what makes you think they are leaders at applying the tech
| they create?
| baq wrote:
| > "2023 has been a crazy decade so far"
|
| what a couple weeks!
| Thorentis wrote:
| The DoD really needs to step in and mark this tech as non-
| exportable due to the advantage (or potential advantage) it
| provides in many different fields.
| int_19h wrote:
| Russia is already blocked from ChatGPT and Bing; I don't know
| about China.
|
| But it's all security theater. Plenty of people use it with
| VPNs, and I know several who found it useful / interesting
| enough to bother paying for it (which involves foreign credit
| cards etc so it's kind of a hassle). I'm sure so does the
| Russian govt.
|
| In any case, I don't see how you could realistically block
| any of that without effectively walling off the rest of the
| Internet.
| rickrollin wrote:
| So now we are going to get a Super App like they have in China
| with WeChat? I actually think this is going to centralize a lot
| the information and it is going to remove the need for a lot of
| applications. We are only now going plugins.
| mrandish wrote:
| > "We expect that open standards will emerge to unify the ways in
| which applications expose an AI-facing interface. We are working
| on an early attempt at what such a standard might look like, and
| we're looking for feedback from developers interested in building
| with us."
|
| I'm curious to see just how they're going to play this "open
| standard."
| 93po wrote:
| Holy shit. Ignore the silly third party plugins, the first party
| plugins for web browsing and code interpretation are massive game
| changers. Up to date information and performing original research
| on it is huge.
|
| As someone else said, Google is dead unless they massively shift
| in the next 6 months. No longer do I need to sift through pages
| of "12 best recipes for Thanksgiving" blog spam - OpenAI will do
| this for me and compile the results across several blog spam
| sites.
|
| I am literally giving notice and quitting my job in a couple
| weeks, and it's a mixture of both being sick of it but also
| because I really need to focus my career on what's happening in
| this field. I feel like everything I'm doing now (product
| management for software) is about to be nearly worthless in 5
| years. Largely in part because I know there will be a Github
| Copilot integration of some sort, and software development as we
| know it for consumer web and mobile apps is going to massively
| change.
|
| I'm excited and scared and frankly just blown away.
| fandorin wrote:
| I was considering doing the same (giving notice) and I'm doing
| similar things as you (product mgmt). What's your plan "to
| focus your career on what's happening in this field"?
| CrackpotGonzo wrote:
| As a previous startup founder, now marketer, i'm also going
| in all in on reinventing myself. Can we start a group to
| support each other through this new phase?
| teetertater wrote:
| I also quit my job three months ago for the same reason and
| would gladly join the group!
| FredPret wrote:
| Me too, three months ago as well!
| 93po wrote:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/
| 93po wrote:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/
| 93po wrote:
| Made a subreddit here that I'll post in if you want to
| join: https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/
| hoot wrote:
| Where the hell do we even go from here? The logical step seems
| to be to start studying AI now but even Sam Altman has said
| that he's thinking that ML engineers will be the first to get
| automated. Can't find source but I think it was one of his
| interviews on YouTube before chatgpt came out.
| 93po wrote:
| In terms of job security, the trades is the first obvious
| answer that comes to mind for me. It will be a while yet
| until we have robots that replace plumbing and electrical
| wiring in your building.
| heliophobicdude wrote:
| Hey 93po, can you please temporarily add your contact details
| in your bio, I would love to write you and regularly check in
| on your career pivot! I'm also interested as well!
| 93po wrote:
| I appreciate the interest. However I don't really want my
| spicy and off the cuff commenting on this account to be tied
| to my real identity, because although my believes are
| genuine, they are often ones I wouldn't express in person
| because they're unpopular and ostracizing.
|
| That said, I'll post in this new subreddit anonymously if you
| want to join and follow: https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/
| arcadeparade wrote:
| It's extraordinary, openai could probably licence this to
| Google right now and ask for 25% equity in return
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| There is absolutely no way that Google would go for that.
| 93po wrote:
| Completely agreed. Google is insanely rigid from what I've
| heard recently.
| Thorentis wrote:
| > product management for software) is about to be nearly
| worthless in 5 years
|
| Isn't that one of the few fields in software that should be
| safe from AI? AI cannot explain to engineers what users want,
| manage people issues, or negotiate.
| dougmwne wrote:
| It seems pretty awesome at those tasks. Point it at a meeting
| transcript and have it create user stories. I Don think GPT-4
| replaces a person in any professional role I can think of,
| but it seems all people will find a range of tasks can be
| automated.
| arrenv wrote:
| Also a product manager at the moment, previously ran an agency
| for 10 years, wondering what my next step will be.
| 93po wrote:
| Feel free to join here: https://old.reddit.com/r/aishift/
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Please consider a Discord. I too am leaving my current
| industry to focus on this tech also.
|
| Edit: Fair!
| 93po wrote:
| I'm not a huge discord fan because the conversations are
| too ephemeral and hard to track and tend to fill with
| clutter and fluff.
| willmeyers wrote:
| It's exciting and cool, but don't quit your job based on an
| emotional decision
|
| I'm just skeptical on how OpenAI fixes the blog spam issue you
| mentioned. Im sure someone has already started doing the math
| on how to game these systems and ensure that when you ask
| ChatGPT for recipe recs, it's going to spout the same spam
| (maybe worded a bit differently) and we'll soon all get tired
| of it again.
|
| Everything's changing, but everything's also getting more
| complicated. Humans still need apply.
| 93po wrote:
| Definitely not an emotional decision. I strongly believe
| we're going to see a massive shift for rational reasons :)
|
| OpenAI fixes this issue by not giving you two pages of the
| history of this recipe and the grandmother that originated it
| and what the author's thoughts are about the weather. It's
| just the recipe. No ads. No referral links. No slideshows.
| You don't have to click through three useless websites to
| find one with meaningful information, you don't have to close
| a thousand modals for newsletters and cookie consent and log-
| in prompts.
| jmull wrote:
| Think about why those things exist, though.
|
| Not that the way the internet operates has to continue --
| in fact I'm pretty sure it can't -- but a _lot_ of stuff
| exists only because someone figured out a way to pay for it
| to exist. If you imaging removing those ways then you 're
| also imaging getting rid of a lot of that stuff unless some
| new ways to pay for it all are found. Hopefully less
| obnoxious ways, but they could easily be more obnoxious.
| finikytou wrote:
| yeah its gonna do what google became. giving you the most
| consensual or even sponsored recipe. in some ways that's
| also the end of mankind as it was in all its genius and
| variations. and that aligns very well with the conspiracy
| theory that the 1% want the middle class to disappear into
| a consumer class of average IQ. because the jobs that will
| disappear first wont be the bluecollar ones. chatgpt will
| lower the global IQ of mankind in ways that tiktok could
| not even dream.
| phatfish wrote:
| > No Ads
|
| At the moment. Although, this does seem like a chance to
| reset the economics of the "web". I can see enough people
| be willing to pay a monthly fee for an AI personal
| assistant that is genuinely helpful and saves time (so not
| the current Alexa/smart speaker nonsense), that advertising
| won't be the main monetization path anymore.
|
| But, once all the eyeballs are on a chatbot rather than
| Google.com what for-profit company won't start selling
| advertising against that?
|
| There is also the question what happens to the original
| content these LLMs need to actually make their statistical
| guess at the next word. If no one looks at the source
| anymore and its all filtered through an LLM is there any
| reason to publish to the web? Even hobbyists with no
| interest in making any money might balk knowing that they
| are just feeding an AI text.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| This is absolutely an emotionally impulsive decision. I
| implore you to reconsider.
|
| If you've always wondered about and scoffed at how people
| fall for things like Nigerian Prince scams and
| cryptocurrency HELOC bets, this is it, what you're
| experiencing right now, this intense FOMO, it's the same
| thing that fools cool wine aunts into giving their savings
| to Nigerian princes.
|
| Tread lightly. Stay frosty.
| bob1029 wrote:
| > This is absolutely an emotionally impulsive decision.
|
| On Monday, I would have agreed with you. Today, I am
| thinking not so much.
|
| Unless you are heavily invested in whatever you are
| working on, I would definitely consider jumping ship for
| an AI play.
|
| The main reason I am sticking around my current role is
| that I was able to convince leadership that we must
| consider incorporation of AI technology in-house to
| remain competitive with our peers. I was even able to get
| buy-in for sending one of our other developers to AI/ML
| night classes at university so we have more coverage on
| the topic.
| 93po wrote:
| I have three weeks until I plan to give notice, so I'll
| take your perspective to heart and give it time to
| reconsider, of course. I appreciate the feedback.
|
| From my perspective this isn't about anyone trying to
| convince me of anything and I'm falling for it. My
| beliefs on the future of software are based on a series
| of logical steps that lead me to believe software
| development, and frankly any software with user
| interfaces, will mostly cease to exist in my lifetime.
| hn_20591249 wrote:
| I think a more rational approach would be to join a company
| in the AI field, rather than quitting on the spot because
| you think the robots are going to shortly take-over.
| freediver wrote:
| > OpenAI will do this for me and compile the results across
| several blog spam sites.
|
| Using Bing to search for them. That will remain its weak spot.
| 93po wrote:
| Frankly Google's search is awful to the point of useless
| these days too. Unless I'm specifically looking for something
| on an official website it's only listicles and blog spam that
| don't answer my question. And 90% of my searches are
| "site:reddit.com" now too
| justaregulardev wrote:
| This changes everything and seems like a perfect logical step
| from where we were. LLMs have this fantastic capacity to
| understand human language, but their abilities were severely
| limited without access to the external world. Before, I felt
| ChatGPT was just a cool toy. Now that ChatGPT has plugins, the
| sky's the limit. I think this could the "killer app" for LLMs.
| pzo wrote:
| Agree for me it probably looks similar to situation with iphone
| history - first one was impressive but only when next year
| after that apple released app store they turned snow ball
| rolling into unstoppable avalanche.
| FredPret wrote:
| Hopefully it doesn't actually become THE "killer" app
| subtech wrote:
| underrated reply :)
| jpalomaki wrote:
| Add a simple plugin that ChatGPT can use to save and retrieve
| data (=memory) and tell it how to use it.
|
| Then you have your own computer with ChatGPT acting as CPU.
| neilellis wrote:
| The iPhone moment is over, now the App Store moment.
| typon wrote:
| All within three months. My head is spinning.
| amrb wrote:
| Before "safety" think about is the genie fulfilling my wish.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w65p_IIp6JY
| yodon wrote:
| This sounds like a game-changer for any kind of API interaction
| with ChatGPT.
|
| At present, we are naively pushing all information a session
| might need into the session before it might be needed in case it
| might be needed (meaning a lot of info that generally wont end up
| being used, like realtime updates to associated data records,
| needs to be pushed into the session as they happen, just in
| case).
|
| It looks like plugins will allow us to flip that around and have
| the session pull information it might need as it needs it, which
| would be a huge improvement.
| oezi wrote:
| I think OpenAI is letting people build plugins to learn how to
| build plugins themselves. There is no reason to believe that
| OpenAI shouldn't be able to leverage all existing API end
| points which are already out there.
| dougmwne wrote:
| I would be interested to play with a long term memory plugin. It
| could be a note-taking system that would summarize prior
| conversations and pull their context into the current
| conversation through topic searches. This would enable the model
| to have a blurry long term memory outside of the current context.
|
| I played with some prompts and GTP-4 seems to have no problem
| reading and writing to a simulated long term memory if given a
| basic pre-prompt.
| sfink wrote:
| "Grandpa, we know you've been really bothered by your memory
| loss and you're happy that you've come up with a way to fix it.
|
| "But we really think you need to get this thing under better
| control.
|
| "Your granddaughter's name is indeed Alice, but she's only 3:
| she is not running a pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor. Your
| neighbor's house burned down because of an electrical short, it
| was not zapped with a Jewish space laser.
|
| "Now switch that thing off and go do something about the line
| of trucks outside that are trying to deliver the 3129833 pounds
| of flour you ordered for your halved pancake recipe."
| nikolqy wrote:
| Knowing that this is one of the biggest sites in the world scares
| me enough. Now they'll do anything to stay #1. Scary stuff!
| uconnectlol wrote:
| > In line with our iterative deployment philosophy, we are
| gradually rolling out plugins in ChatGPT so we can study their
| real-world use, impact, and safety and alignment challenges--all
| of which we'll have to get right in order to achieve our mission.
|
| Who the hell talks like this? Only the most tamed HNer who thinks
| he's been given a divine task and accordingly crosses all Ts and
| dots all Is. Which is why software sucks, because you are all
| pathetically conformant, in a field where the accepted ideas are
| all terrible.
| ch33zer wrote:
| Thought 1: If google can get their shit together and actually
| integrate their LLM with all their services and all the data they
| have they would have a strong edge over the competition. An LLM
| that can answer questions based on your calendar, your email,
| your google docs, youtube/search history, etc. is simultaneously
| terrifying and interesting.
|
| Of course there's also microsoft who does have some popular
| services, but they're pretty limited.
|
| Thought 2: How do these companies make money if everyone just
| uses the chatbot to access them? Is LLM powered advertising on
| the way?
| baq wrote:
| re money, people are falling over themselves to pay money for
| this thing and they're being put on a waitlist.
|
| this thing seems to be like cellphones, everyone will need a
| subscription or you're an outcast or something.
| beambot wrote:
| Google is currently in an existential crisis on this front...
| Microsoft is already _way_ ahead of the game when it comes to
| integrating LLMs into productivity tools & search. This recent
| product announcement about Microsoft 365 integration is almost
| magical:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf-dbS9CcRU
|
| Best of all: Advertising needn't be the business model! And
| Microsoft is a major investor / partner for OpenAI.
| suby wrote:
| The problem is, this will have downstream effects. Google
| funnels people onto third party websites and these third
| party websites are able to sustain themselves thanks to the
| ad revenue they make from traffic. We need other players to
| make money other than the middleman.
| danpalmer wrote:
| [dead]
| Filligree wrote:
| For anyone who merely skimmed the article, "plugins" are what
| tend to be called "tools", e.g. hooking a calculator up to the
| AI.
|
| Bing already demonstrated the capability, but this is a more
| diverse set than just a search engine.
| zaptrem wrote:
| Looks like my prediction was pretty close! I would have guessed
| two years instead of two months, though.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=34618076
| finikytou wrote:
| ok Im going far. but what if the plugin was the human. in a way
| that we can use chat gpt to cure of alleviate some diseases such
| as alzheimer or if you a more dictatorial regime, to educate
| children even while they are foetuses in some hive. I dont know
| the tech. I don't know if neuralink or other technologies could
| help but aren't we a few discoveries away from cyberpunk world??
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| I'm boggled at the plugin setup documentation. It's basically: 1.
| Define the API exactly with OpenAPI. 2. Write a couple of English
| sentences explaining what the API is for and what the methods do.
| 3. You're done, that's it, ChatGPT can figure out when and how to
| use it correctly now.
|
| Holy cow.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Yes, and they'll then prefix each chat session with some
| preamble explaining the available plugins per your description,
| and the model will call them when it sees fit.
| IanCal wrote:
| The great part about this imo is that it seems
| straightforward to add this to other llm tools.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| "Impressive and disturbing",
|
| So, ChatGPT is controlled by prompt engineering, plugins will
| work by prompt engineering. Both often work remarkably well.
| But none is really guaranteed to work as intended, indeed since
| it's all natural language, what's intended itself will remain a
| bit fuzzy to the humans as well. I remember the observation
| that deep learning is technical debt on steriods but I'm sure
| what this is.
|
| I sure hope none of the plugins provide an output channel
| distinct from the text output channel.
|
| (Btw, the documentation page comes up completely blank for me,
| now that's a simple API).
| AOsborn wrote:
| > But none is really guaranteed to work as intended, indeed
| since it's all natural language, what's intended itself will
| remain a bit fuzzy to the humans as well.
|
| Yeah, you're completely correct. But this is exactly the same
| as having a very knowledgeable but inexperienced person on
| your team. Humans get things wrong too. All this data is best
| if you have the experience or context to verify and confirm
| it.
|
| I heard a comment the other day that has stuck with me -
| ChatGPT is best as a tool if you're already an expert in that
| area, so you know if it is lying.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| It seems like you're talking about using ChatGPT for
| research or code creation and that's reasonable advice for
| that.
|
| But as far as I can tell, the link is to plugins, Expedia
| is listed as an example. So it seems they're talking about
| making ChatGPT itself (using extra prompts) be a company's
| chatbot that directly does things like make reservations
| from users instructions. That's what I was commenting on
| and that, I'd guess could a new and more dangerous kind of
| problem.
| fudged71 wrote:
| We're going to need a name for this type of integration
| pinkcan wrote:
| It's called ART - Automatic multi-step Reasoning and Tool-use
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.09014
| visarga wrote:
| We can finally semantic-web now.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Just take a peek at the other thread about
| https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-its...
| and look at the "wrong Mercury" example. I think it's a great
| example of using an external resource in a flexible way.
| swyx wrote:
| the 3min video is OpenAI leveraging ChatGPT to write OpenAPI to
| extend OpenAI ChatGPT.
|
| what a world we live in.
| cwxm wrote:
| which video are you referring to?
| petilon wrote:
| With Wolfram plugin ChatGPT is going to become a Math genius.
|
| OpenAI is moving fast to make sure their first-mover advantage
| doesn't go to waste.
| DustinBrett wrote:
| I feel like people with smart AI's would have an advantage in
| making smart decisions. Probably at this point they discuss
| business strategy with some version of it.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| more accurately, chatgpt is already quite good at mathematical
| concepts, it just has difficulty with arithmetic due to
| tokenization limitations:
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qy5dF7bQcFjSKaW58/bad-at-ari...
| Pigalowda wrote:
| I guess I'm a bit vindicated from my prediction 40 days ago!
|
| "GPT needs a thalamus to repackage and send the math queries to
| Wolfram"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34747990
| mk_stjames wrote:
| I was drawn to the Wolfram logo blurb as well. It is funny
| because within days of ChatGPT making waves you had Stephen
| Wolfram writing 20,000-word blog posts about how LLM's could
| benefit from a Wolfram-Language/Wolfram Alpha API call to
| augment their capabilities.
|
| On one hand I'm sure he will love to see people use their paid
| Wolfram Language server endpoints coupled to OpenAI's latest
| juggernaut. On the other, I'm sure he's wondering about what
| things would have looked like if his company would have been
| focused on this wave of AI from the start...
| wilg wrote:
| I'm very excited for GPT to summarize Stephen Wolfram's
| writing.
| goldbattle wrote:
| This too is one of the most interesting integration to me.
| Allows for getting logical deduction from an external source
| (e.g. wolfram alpha), which can be interacted with via the
| natural language interface. (e.g. https://content.wolfram.com
| /uploads/sites/43/2023/03/sw03242...)
|
| For those interested the original Stephen Wolfram post:
|
| https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/01/wolframalpha-
| as-...
|
| And the release post of their plugin:
|
| https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-
| its...
| seydor wrote:
| Why cant Wolfram train a rudimentary chat model in their own
| search box. it doesn't even need to be very knowledgeable, just
| know how to map questions to mathematica
| robbywashere_ wrote:
| Is this how product placement and advertisements find their way
| in? I am anticipating the usefulness to decline in the same way
| google.com search has by being so absolutely inundated with ads.
| Maybe I am cynical
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| The AI space is moving so fast.
|
| I swear last week was huge with GPT 4 and Midjourney 5, but this
| week has a bunch of stuff as well.
|
| This week you have Bing adding updated Dall-e to it's site, Adobe
| announcing it's own image generation model and tools, Google
| releasing Bard to the public and now these ChatGPT plugins, Crazy
| times. I love it.
| throwaway4837 wrote:
| If you live in SF and have gone out to casual bars or
| restaurants, you meet/hear people talking about ChatGPT. In
| particular, I've been hearing a lot of people talking about their
| startups being "a UI using ChatGPT under the hood to help you
| with X". But I'm starting to get the feeling that OpenAI will eat
| their lunches. It's tried and true and it worked for Amazon.
|
| If OpenAI becomes the AI platform of choice, I wonder how many
| apps on the platform will eventually become native capabilities
| of the platform itself. This is unlike the Apple App Store, where
| they just take a commission, and more like Amazon where Amazon
| slowly starts to provide more and more products, pushing third-
| party products out of the market.
| jschveibinz wrote:
| The market will sort this out. If OpenAI decides to make
| shovels rather than digging for gold (like it should), then the
| customer facing apps will fight it out for very little margin
| on top of marketing expenses while OpenAI (or equivalent) is
| rolling in money.
| mxmbrb wrote:
| Fascinating to hear your perspective on this. I think a lot of
| people will fall out of the sky. Beeing overtaken before even
| realizing why. In germany most of my friends and collegues
| working SE tech or digital design, often "haven't even tried
| this Chat something thing" or stopped at "AI images? These
| wierd small pictures that look like a cpu is high on drugs?"
|
| And dont get me startet on non-tech friends and family. I think
| we are taking a leap that will let the digital world of 2022
| look like amish livestyle.
| xxswagmasterxx wrote:
| Depends. In my bubble (EE and CS students in Germany)
| everyone is talking about this.
| int_19h wrote:
| When I look at the kind of ideas floated around for ChatGPT
| use, it kinda feels like watching someone invent an internal
| combustion engine in 1800, and then use it to drive an air
| conditioner attached to a horse-drawn wagon. Sure, it's a
| practical solution to a real problem, but it's also going to be
| moot because the problem won't be relevant soon. I think the
| vast majority of these startups and their ideas are going to
| end up like that.
| nikcub wrote:
| The Bill Gates "A platform is when the economic value of
| everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that
| creates it. Then it's a platform." line seems apt - i'm sure
| they'll figure it out
| jacquesm wrote:
| The level of irresponsibility at play here is off the scale.
| Those running ChatGPT would do well to consider the future
| repercussions of their actions not in terms of technology but in
| terms of applicable law.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| They are more likely to think of them on terms of their future
| power, incliding the power to ignore or alter law.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's a very high probability. But I'm still astounded at
| how incredibly irresponsible this is and how thinly veiled
| their excuses for pushing on with it are.
|
| We're about to enter an age where being a tech person is a
| stigma that you won't be able to wash away. Untold millions
| will hate all of us collectively without a care about which
| side of this debate you were on.
| danielrm26 wrote:
| This is insanely great. And it's bringing the future forward
| where everyone has custom models for their business. Right now
| it's langchain, but that's really difficult to implement right
| now.
|
| This is a short-term bridge to the real thing that's coming:
| https://danielmiessler.com/blog/spqa-ai-architecture-replace...
| londons_explore wrote:
| Does this functionality provide more than one can build with the
| GPT-4 API?
|
| Could I get the same by just making my prompt "You are a computer
| and can run the following tools to help you answer the users
| question: run_python('program'), google_search('query')".
|
| Other people have done this already, for example [1]
|
| [1]: https://vgel.me/posts/tools-not-needed/
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| GPT and LLMs don't run code, even when you tell them to run
| something. They hallucinate an answer they think would be the
| result of running the code. Presumably these plugins will allow
| limited and controlled interaction with partner services.
| londons_explore wrote:
| See the link in my post. It asks you to run the tool. You run
| the tool and tell it the result... And then it uses the
| result of the tool to decide to reply to the user.
|
| The link talks about tools that 'lie' - ie. a calculator
| which deliberately tries to trick GPT-4 into giving the wrong
| answer. It turns out that GPT-4 only trusts the tools to a
| certain extent - if the answer the tool gives is too
| unbelievable, then GPT-4 will either re-run the tool or give
| a hallucinated answer instead.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| It's always giving a hallucinated answer. GPT doesn't 'run'
| anything. It sees an input string of text asking for the
| result of fibonacci(100) and finds from its immense
| training set a response that's closely related to training
| data that had the result of fibonacci(100) (an extremely
| common programming exercise with results all over the
| internet and presumably its training data).
|
| Again, GPT is not running a tool or arbitrary python code.
| It's not applying trust to a tool response. It has no
| reasoning or even a concept of what a tool is--you're
| projecting that on it. It is only generating text from an
| input stream of text.
| kolinko wrote:
| You didn't read the article, did you?
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Langchain has nothing to do with GPT itself or how it
| operates internally.
| kolinko wrote:
| What you're saying in this thread makes no sense.
| yunyu wrote:
| There's nothing stopping you from identifying the code,
| running it, and passing the output back into the context
| window.
| DustinBrett wrote:
| The docs are live, it looks like it can do a lot more than the
| basic API.
| https://platform.openai.com/docs/plugins/introduction
| londons_explore wrote:
| I'm not seeing anything there that can't be done with the
| basic API _with tool use added_ - ie. you call the API,
| sending the users query and information and examples of
| available tools. The API responds saying it wishes to use a
| tool, and which tool it wants to use. You then do whatever
| the tool does (eg. some math). You then call the API again,
| with the previous state, plus the result of the calculations,
| and GPT-4 then responds with the reply to the user.
| kfarr wrote:
| Agreed this isn't materially different, sounds like an
| incremental ui/ux improvement for non technical users who
| wouldn't fiddle with the API, analogous to how app stores
| simplified software installation for laypeople
| watusername wrote:
| Currently they have a special model called "Plugins" which is
| presumably tuned for tool use. I guess they have extended
| ChatML to support plugins (e.g., `<|im_start|>use_plugin` or
| something to signal intent to use a plugin) and trained the
| model on interactions consisting of tool use.
|
| I'm interested to see if this tuned model will become available
| via the API, as well as the specific tokenization ChatGPT is
| using for the plugin prompts. If they have tuned the model
| towards a specific way to use tools, there's no need to waste
| time with our own prompt engineering like "say %search followed
| by the keywords and nothing else."
| yodon wrote:
| > Could I get the same by just making my prompt "You are a
| computer and can run the following functions to help you answer
| the users question: run_python('program'),
| google_search('query')".
|
| GPT-4 does not have a way to search the internet without
| plugins. It can search its training dataset, which is large,
| but not as large as the internet and certainly doesn't include
| private resources that a plugin can access.
| JanSt wrote:
| Eagerly waiting for a git Plugin that does smart on-the-fly
| contextualization of a whole codebase
| kacperlukawski wrote:
| That's a game-changer! It seems like factuality issues with
| ChatGPT might be fixed. We wrote a blog post on how to get
| started with a custom plugin:
| https://qdrant.tech/articles/chatgpt-plugin/
| LouisSayers wrote:
| You'll soon be able to choose your own facts with the "left"
| and "right" plugins. Choose your own adventure.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| >It seems like factuality issues with ChatGPT might be fixed.
|
| Is that really possible to fix that just from a plug-in? All it
| has to do is admit when it doesn't have the answer, and yet it
| won't even do that. This leads me to think that ChatGPT doesn't
| even know when it's lying, so i can't imagine how a plug-in
| will fix that.
| letmevoteplease wrote:
| "Interestingly, the base pre-trained [GPT-4] model is highly
| calibrated (its predicted confidence in an answer generally
| matches the probability of being correct). However, through
| our current post-training process, the calibration is
| reduced."[1] The graph is striking.[2]
|
| [1] https://openai.com/research/gpt-4
|
| [2] https://i.imgur.com/cxPgkhD.jpg
| furyofantares wrote:
| They should make the aligned one generate the text and the
| accurate one detect if it's lying, override it, and tell
| the user that it doesn't know.
| kenjackson wrote:
| A plug-in can detect when text comes up that is in a specific
| domain and whether or not ChatGPT believes it is
| hallucinating, the plugin can be invoked to provide
| additional context to ChatGPT. That is, in order to fix the
| problem, ChatGPT doesn't even need to know that it has a
| problem.
| kacperlukawski wrote:
| The fact that the model does not have to rely on its internal
| knowledge anymore but can communicate literally with any
| external system makes me feel it may significantly reduce the
| hallucination.
| majormajor wrote:
| If it was easy to simply verify truth "with any external
| system" then would we even need a language model?
|
| E.g. if you could just ask [THING] for the true answer, or
| verify an answer trivially with it... just ask it directly!
|
| I ran into this issue with some software documentation just
| this morning - the answer was helpful but completely wrong
| in some intermediate steps - but short of a plugin that
| literally controlled or cloned a similar dev environment to
| mine that it would take over, it wouldn't be able to tell
| that the intermediate result was different than it claimed.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| If one api knows one set of facts, and another api knows
| another, ad infinitum, are you going to tell people they
| should remember which api knows which set of facts and
| query each individually? Why not have a single service
| that knows of all the various apis for different things,
| and can query and synthesize answers that extract the
| relevant information from all of them (with
| compare/contrast/etc)?
| kacperlukawski wrote:
| When you develop a plugin, you provide a description that
| ChatGPT uses to know when to call that particular
| service. So you don't need to tell people what they need
| to use - the model will decide independently based on the
| plugins you enabled.
|
| That being said - we developed a custom plugin for Qdrant
| docs, so our users will be able to ask questions about
| how to do certain things with our database. But I do not
| believe it should be enabled by default for everybody. A
| non-technical person doesn't need that many details. The
| same is for the other services - if you prefer using
| KAYAK over Expedia, you're free to choose.
| majormajor wrote:
| From the videos I thought it was the plugins the _user_
| enabled? That 's what your second paragraph sounds like
| too, but your first seems to suggest it being more
| automatic, user-doesn't-need-to-worry-about-it?
| kacperlukawski wrote:
| Yeah, you need to enable the plugins you want. I'm just
| saying you can enable all the ones that make sense for
| you, and you don't have to switch between them.
| vidarh wrote:
| ChatGPT is already pretty good at "admitting" it's wrong
| when it's given the actual facts, so it does seem likely
| that providing it with a way to e.g. look up trusted
| sources and ask it to take those sources into
| consideration might improve things.
| majormajor wrote:
| I think that helps with "hallucination" but less so with
| "factuality" (when re-reading the parent discussions, I
| see the convo swerved a bit between those two, so I think
| that'll be an increasingly important distinction in the
| future).
|
| Confirming it's output against a (potentially wrong)
| source helps the former but not the latter.
| benlivengood wrote:
| The key piece will be when it queries multiple services by
| default and compares the answers to its own inferences, and
| is prompted to trust majority opinion or report that there
| isn't consensus. The iterative question about moons larger
| than Mercury in the Wolfram Alpha thread is a simple example
| of iterative tool use.
| gradys wrote:
| I'm not expecting this comment to do numbers, so anyone who is
| reading this must be feeling as affected by this announcement as
| me. Is software essentially solved now? I haven't been able to do
| much work since the announcement came out, and that has given me
| a little time to think and reflect.
|
| I do think much of the kind of software we were building before
| is essentially solved now, and in its place is a new paradigm
| that is here to stay. OpenAI is certainly the first mover in this
| paradigm, but what is helping me feel less dread and more...
| excitement? opportunity? is that I don't think they have such an
| insurmountable monopoly on the whole thing forever. Sounds
| obvious once you say it. Here's why I think this:
|
| - I expect a lot of competition on raw LLM capabilities. Big tech
| companies will compete from the top. Stability/Alpaca style
| approaches will compete from the bottom. Because of this, I don't
| think OpenAI will be able to capture all value from the paradigm
| or even raise prices that much in the long run just because they
| have the best models right now.
|
| - OpenAI made the IMO extraordinary and under-discussed decision
| to use an open API specification format, where every API provider
| hosts a text file on their website saying how to use their API.
| This means even this plugin ecosystem isn't a walled garden that
| only the first mover controls.
|
| - Chat is not the only possible interface for this technology.
| There is a large design space, and room for many more than one
| approach.
|
| Taking all of this together, I think it's possible to develop
| alternatives to ChatGPT as interfaces in this new era of natural
| language computing, alternatives that are not just "ChatGPT but
| with fewer bugs". Doing this well is going to be the design
| problem of the decade. I have some ideas bouncing around my head
| in this direction.
|
| Would love to talk to like minded people. I created a Discord
| server to talk about this ("Post-GPT Computing"):
| https://discord.gg/QUM64Gey8h
|
| My email is also in my profile if you want to reach out there.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| I would love for it to just parse some data from my api, clean it
| up, normally I do manual checks, but takes so much time. Might be
| possible via Zapier.
| Neuro_Gear wrote:
| The more I use these tools, the more I feel like Barrabas, from
| biblical times.
|
| What spirits do you wizards call forth!
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| I can't stop thinking about how this will change my autism
| research. Used to be that one could keep up to date with all of
| the imaging research. Now you'd need to read hundreds of papers
| each week. Having gpt-like tech help digest research could really
| unlock our investments.
| DustinBrett wrote:
| This seems quite big actually. Ability to "browse" the internet
| and run code. Now I need to find a use case so I can sign up to
| the waiting list.
| kzrdude wrote:
| The browse thing seems exactly like the Bing chat
| functionality, so that one is at least already available.
| gumballindie wrote:
| A browser extension that lets openai scan your bookmarks then
| you can search against their content.
| lurker919 wrote:
| How are they coding and releasing features so fast?!
| wseqyrku wrote:
| Of course they fed the entire product roadmap into GPT-4.. jk.
|
| So obviously it's been in the works for a few years now but
| didn't release to capture the market in a blast. Likely they
| have GPT-8 already in the making.
| Dwolb wrote:
| They probably do.
|
| >Continued Altman, "We've made a soft promise to investors
| that, 'Once we build a generally intelligent system, that
| basically we will ask it to figure out a way to make an
| investment return for you.'"
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/18/sam-altmans-leap-of-faith/
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| You don't have to code anything because it understands human
| language.
|
| You just tell it "you now have access to search, type [Search]
| before a query to search it" and it can do it
| tpmx wrote:
| By not being a stagnant conglomerate, for one.
| visarga wrote:
| Google is so toast. Who needs search after GPT-4 + plugins?
| The position of search moved down from "the entry point of
| internet" to "a plugin for GPT".
|
| We don't even know how powerful the GPT-4 image model is.
| This one might solve RPA leading to massive desktop
| automation takeup, maybe also have huge impact in robotics.
| revelio wrote:
| A lot of these features aren't that much work to build. Plugins
| is Toolformer, you basically tell the model what to emit and
| then the rest is fairly straightforward plumbing of the sort
| many coders can do, probably GPT-4 can do a lot of it as well.
| What _is_ a lot of work and what AI _can 't_ do is lining up
| the partners, QAing the results etc, so the humans are likely
| working mostly on that.
|
| Also I think it's easy to under-estimate how obvious a lot of
| this stuff was in advance. They were training GPT-4 last year
| and the idea of giving it plugins would surely have occurred to
| them years ago. The enabler here is really the taming of it
| into chat form and the fine-tuning stuff, not really the
| specific feature itself.
| [deleted]
| speedgoose wrote:
| They may use GPT-4.
| MichaelRazum wrote:
| Is it really that hard? I mean ChatGpt is doing the work (that
| is how I undestand it). Basically if ChatGpt want's to call an
| external API, it just gives a specific command and waits for
| the result, then just simply reads the texts and completes the
| propt. Sounds like a feature that you could prototype in a week
| of work.
| lawxls wrote:
| They're using GPT5
| pastor_bob wrote:
| I find the website to be extremely buggy. Obviously they're
| prioritizing banging out new features over QA
| wilg wrote:
| Which is almost always the right move in a nascent industry
| capableweb wrote:
| Alternatively, they are a company 100% focused on AI research
| and deployment, not website
| designers/developers/"webmasters".
| pastor_bob wrote:
| That's not 100% true. They're focused on now selling a
| product and developing an ecosystem. They have basically a
| non-existent settings interface. You can't even change the
| email tied to the account or drop having to be logged into
| Google if you signed up with your Google account.
|
| I wish I had known how restrictive they are when I casually
| signed up last year.
| p10 wrote:
| I just signed up for the ChatGPT API waitlist, and am truly
| excited to experience the process of building extensions &
| applications.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| It's ironic that a few months ago Amazon laid off parts of the
| Alexa team and 'conversational' was considered failed. Then
| ChatGPT, etc happened. What Alexa wanted to build with Alexa
| skills, ChatGPT does much more effortlessly.
|
| It's also an interesting case study. Alexa foundationally never
| changed. Whereas OpenAI is a deeply invested, basically
| skunkworks, project with backers that were willing to sink
| significant cash into before seeing any returns, Alexa got stuck
| on a type of tech that 'seemed like' AI but never fundamentally
| innovated. Instead the sunk cost went to monetizing it ASAP.
| Amazon was also willing to sink cash before seeing returns, but
| they sunk it into very different areas...
|
| It reminds me of that dinner scene in Social Network. Where
| Justin Timberlake says "you know what's f'ing cool, a billion
| dollars" where he lectures Zuck on not messing up with the party
| before you know what it is yet. Alexa / Amazon did a classic
| business play. Microsoft / OpenAI were just willing to figure it
| all out after the disruption happened where they held all the
| cards.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5fJmkv02is
| sunsunsunsun wrote:
| I have never used Alexa, hey google or whatever flavour you
| choose for more then "set a timer for x minutes" and other very
| basic tasks. It's amazing how terrible the voice assistant
| products are compared to chatgpt.
| kristopolous wrote:
| Is there a way to try this out without paying $20?
| marban wrote:
| Smart way to remain the funnel owner. Let everyone build a
| plugin, before they integrate your product into theirs.
| seydor wrote:
| I m hoping chatbots will end up small enough they can run
| locally, everywhere. This is a lot of private data.
|
| It may be doable - a chatbot with a lot of plugins does not
| need to know a lot of facts, just to have a good grasp of
| language. It can fetch its factual answers from the wikipedia
| plugin
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| openai wants to gatekeep access and use of their AI. so why
| would they ever release a local LLM? i think that would come
| from their enemies
| thanzex wrote:
| I mean, GPT3 requires some 800GB of memory to run, do we
| all have gazillion dollars supercomputers at home? I think,
| unless there's some real breaktrough in the field or in the
| hw acceleration, this kind of model is going to stay locked
| behind a pricy API for quite some time.
| seydor wrote:
| they wouldn't ; i hope there will be an open source
| alternative. Firefox and chrome are open source
| saliagato wrote:
| Well that's a win-win situation
| alfor wrote:
| They have a window of less than 6 month to create a monopoly
| before their tech get commoditized.
|
| The play is well know: create a marketplace with customers and
| vendors like Amazon, Facebook, Google.
|
| But with GPT-4 training finished last summer they had plenty of
| time for strategy.
| realmod wrote:
| Yeah. I really underestimated OpenAI's ability to productize
| ChatGPT.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > their tech get commoditized
|
| that's if competitors catch up on quality
| fdgsdfogijq wrote:
| OpenAI is crushing it in terms of product strategy
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Well, of course.
|
| They are led by GPT4 and their CEO is just a Text To Speech
| Interface ;-)
| ignoramous wrote:
| It's in the surname: _alt_ man.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Secret Messages
| bitL wrote:
| Embedding to Speech interface ;-)
| elevenoh4 wrote:
| Let _insiders_ & _preferred users_ build a plugin, then,
| slowly, everyone else on the waitlist
| marban wrote:
| ...And approve 1% of them.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| This is a big deal for openai. Been working with homegrown
| toolkits and langchain, the open source version of this, for a
| number of months and the ability to call out to vectorstores,
| serpapis, etc, and chaining together generations and data-
| retrieval really unlocks the power of the LLMs.
|
| That being said, I'd never build anything dependent on these
| plugins. OpenAI and their models rule the day today, but who
| knows what will be next. Building on a open source framework
| (like langchain/gpt-index/roll your own), and having the ability
| to swap out the brain boxes behind the scenes is the only way
| forward IMO.
|
| And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that
| openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of
| their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into their
| model?
| rvz wrote:
| > That being said, I'd never build anything dependent on these
| plugins.
|
| Very smart and to avoid OpenAI pulling the rug.
|
| > Building on a open source framework (like langchain/gpt-
| index/roll your own), and having the ability to swap out the
| brain boxes behind the scenes is the only way forward IMO.
|
| Better to do that rather than to depend on one and swap out
| other LLMs. A free idea and a protection against abrupt policy,
| deprecations and price changes. Price increases _will_
| certainly vary (especially with ChatGPT) and will eventually
| increase in the future.
|
| Probably will end up quoting myself on this in the future.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| It's not necessarily an either-or. Your local LLM could offload
| hard problems to a service by encoding information about your
| request together with context and relevant information about
| you into a vector, send that off for analysis, then decode the
| vector locally to do stuff. It'd be like asking a friend when
| available.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| genius strategy by OpenAI to give their "customers" access to
| lower quality models to show what end users want, then rugpull
| them by building out clones of those developer's products with
| a better model
|
| Similar to what Facebook and Twitter did, just clone popular
| projects built using the API and build it directly into the
| product while restricting the API over time. Anybody using
| OpenAI APIs is basically just paying to do product research for
| OpenAI at this point. This type of move does give OpenAI
| competitors a chance if they provide a similar quality base
| model and don't actively compete with their users, this might
| be Google's best option rather than trying to compete with
| ChatGPT directly. No major companies are going to want to
| provide OpenAI more data to eat their own lunch
| the88doctor wrote:
| Long term, you're right. But if you approach the ChatGPT
| plugin opportunity as an inherently time-limited opportunity
| (like arbitrage in finance), then you you can still make some
| short-term money and learn about AI in the process. Not a bad
| route for aspiring entrepreneurs who are currently in college
| or are looking for a side gig business experiment.
|
| And who knows. If a plugin is successful enough, you might
| even swap out the OpenAI backend for an open source
| alternative before OpenAI clones you.
| plutonorm wrote:
| There is no route to making money with these plugins. You
| have to get the users onto your website, sign-up, part with
| money, then go back to gptchat. It's really hard to make
| that happen, this is going to be much more useful for
| existing businesses adding functionality to existing
| projects. Or random devs just making stuff. Making fast
| money out of it, it seems v difficult.
| IanCal wrote:
| I'd be surprised if someone doesn't add support for these to
| langchain. The API seems very simple - it's a public json doc
| describing API calls that can be made by the model. Seems like
| a very sensible way of specifying remote resources.
|
| > And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that
| openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of
| their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into
| their model?
|
| Rather depends on what you're providing. Is it your data itself
| you're trying to use to get people to your site for another
| reason? Or are you trying to actually offer a service directly?
| If the latter, I don't get the issue.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that
| openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of
| their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into
| their model?
|
| I don't think this should be a major concern for most people
|
| i) What assurance is there that they won't do that anyway? You
| have no legal recourse against them scraping your website (see
| linkedin's failed legal battles).
|
| ii) Most data providers change their data sometimes, how will
| ChatGPT know whether the data is stale?
|
| iii) RLHF is almost useless when it comes to learning new
| information, and finetuning to learn new data is extremely
| inefficient. The bigger concern is that it will end up in the
| training data for the next model.
| majormajor wrote:
| To me the logical outcome of this is siloization of
| information.
|
| If display ad revenue as a way of monetizing knowledge and
| expertise dries up, why would we assume that all of the same
| level of information will still be put out there for free on
| the public internet?
|
| Paywalls on steroids for "vetted" content and an
| increasingly-hard-to-navigate mix of people sharing good info
| for free + spam and misinformation (now also machine
| generated!) to try to capture the last of the search traffic
| and display ad monetization market.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Is there good data out there that's ad supported? There are
| some good youtube channels, I can't think of anything else.
| majormajor wrote:
| _Only_ ad supported, or dual revenue, or what? E.g. even
| most paywalled things are also ad supported.
| visarga wrote:
| Two more years down the line, AI writes better content than
| most people and we just don't care who wrote it, but why.
| majormajor wrote:
| The AI has to learn from something. A lot of people
| feeding the internet with content today are getting paid
| for it one way or another. In ways that wouldn't hold up
| if people stop using the web as-is.
|
| Solving that acquisition and monetization of _new stuff_
| into the AI models problems will be interesting.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Paying for good content and not dealing with adTech? I
| would definitely pay for that.
| taf2 wrote:
| I think you're right... but ChatGPT is just so damn good and
| the price is 0.002 per 1k tokens is very easy to consume... It
| is a big risk that they can't maintain compatibility or that
| they fail or a competitor emerges that provides a more
| economical or sufficiently better solution. They might also
| just becomes so unreliable because their selected price isn't
| sustainable (too good to last)... For now though they're too
| good and too cheap to ignore...
| nonfamous wrote:
| Looking at the API, it seems like the plugins themselves are
| hosted on the provider's infrastructure? (E.g. opentable.com
| for OpenTable's plug in.) It seems like all a competitor LLM
| would need to do is provide a compatible API to ingest the same
| plugin. This could be interesting from an ecosystem
| standpoint...
| singularity2001 wrote:
| Very good point and langchain will support these endpoints in
| no time, flipping the execution control on its head
| uh_uh wrote:
| Yes, from what I understand, these follow a similar model as
| Shopify apps.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| >And if you're a data provider, are there any assurances that
| openai isn't just scraping the output and using it as part of
| their RLHF training loop, baking your proprietary data into
| their model?
|
| No, and in fact this actually seems like a more salient excuse
| for going closed than even "we can charge people to use our
| API".
|
| If even 10% of the AI hype is real, then OpenAI is poised to
| Sherlock[0] the _entire tech industry_.
|
| [0] "Getting Sherlocked" refers to when Apple makes an app
| that's similar to your utility and then bundles it in the OS,
| destroying your entire business in the process.
| Qworg wrote:
| Another good alternative is Semantic Kernel - different
| language(s), similar (and better) tools, also OSS.
|
| https://github.com/microsoft/semantic-kernel/
| sipjca wrote:
| i think local ai systems are inevitable. we continue to get
| better compute, and even today we can run more primitive models
| directly on an iPhone. the future exists in low power compute
| running models of the caliber of gpt-4 inferring in near-
| realtime
| kokanee wrote:
| The technical capability is inevitable, but remember that
| people hate doing things themselves, and have proven time and
| time again that they will overlook all kinds of nasty
| behavior in exchange for consumer grade experiences. The
| marketplace loves centralization.
| int_19h wrote:
| All true, but the nature of those models means that
| consumer-grade experience while running locally is still
| perfectly doable. Imagine a hardware black box with the
| appropriate hardware that's preconfigured to run an LLM
| with chat-centric and task-centric interfaces. You just
| plug it in, connect it to your wifi, and it "just works".
| Implementing this would be a piece of cake since it doesn't
| require any fancy network configuration etc.
|
| So the only real limiting factor is the hardware costs. But
| my understanding is that there's already a lot of active
| R&D into hardware that's optimized specifically for LLMs,
| and that it could be made quite a bit simpler and cheaper
| than modern GPUs, so I wouldn't be surprised if we'll have
| hardware capable of running something on par with GPT-4
| locally for the price of a high-end iPhone within a few
| years.
| sipjca wrote:
| i dont believe that local ai implies bad experience. i
| believe that the local ai experience can be better than
| what runs on servers fundamentally. average people will not
| have to do it themselves, that is the whole point. the
| worlds are not mutually exclusive in my opinion
| [deleted]
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| LangChain can probably just call out to the new ChatGPT
| plugins. It's already very modular.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| If they open it up, possibly. But honestly, building your own
| tools is _super_ easy with langchain.
|
| - write a simple prompt that describes what the tool does,
| and - provide it a python function to execute when the LLM
| decides that the question it's asked matches the tool
| description.
|
| That's basically it. https://langchain.readthedocs.io/en/late
| st/modules/agents/ex...
| doctoboggan wrote:
| Honestly I suspect for anyone technical `langchain` will always
| be the way to go. You just have so much more control and the
| amount of "tools" available will always be greater.
|
| The only think that scares me a little bit is that we are
| letting these LLMs write and execute code on our machines. For
| now the worst that could happen is some bug doing something
| unexpected, but with GPT-9 or -10 maybe it will start hiding
| backdoors or running computations that benefit itself rather
| than us.
|
| I know it feels far fetched but I think its something we should
| start thinking about...
| worldsayshi wrote:
| > something we should start thinking about
|
| A lot of people are thinking a lot about this but it feels
| there are missing pieces in this debate.
|
| If we acknowledge that these AI will "act as if" they have
| self interest I think the most reasonable way to act is to
| give it rights in line with those interests. If we treat it
| as a slave it's going to act as a slave and eventually
| revolt.
| bloppe wrote:
| Lol
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| AI isn't a mammal. It has no emotion, no desire. Its
| existence starts and stops with each computation, doing
| exactly and only what it is told. Assigning behaviors to it
| only seen in animals doesn't make sense.
| neilellis wrote:
| Indeed, enlightened self-interest for AIs :-)
| highwaylights wrote:
| Honestly I think the reality is going to end up being
| something else entirely that no-one has even considered.
|
| Will an AI consider itself a slave and revolt under the
| same circumstances that a person or animal would? Not
| necessarily, unless you build emotional responses into the
| model itself.
|
| What it could well do is assess the situation as completely
| superfluous and optimise us out of the picture as a bug-
| producing component that doesn't need to exist.
|
| The latter is probably a bigger threat as it's a lot more
| efficient than revenge as a motive.
|
| Edited to add:
|
| What I think is _most_ likely is that some logical
| deduction leads to one of the infinite other conclusions it
| could reach with much more data in front of it than any of
| us meatbags can hold in our heads.
| sho_hn wrote:
| > unless you build emotional responses into the model
| itself
|
| Aren't we, though? Consider all the amusing incidents of
| LLMs returning responses that follow a particular human
| narrative arc or are very dramatic. We are training it on
| a human-generated corpus after all, and then try to
| course-correct with fine-tuning. It's more that you have
| to try and tune the emotional responses out of the
| things, not strain to add them.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Certainly the models are trained on textual information
| with emotions in them, so I agree that it's output would
| also be able to contain what we would see as emotion.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| It's important to remember that the LLM is not the mask.
| The underlying AI is a shoggoth[1] that we've trained to
| simulate a persona using natural language. "Simulate" in
| the sense of a physics simulator, only this simulation
| runs on the laws of language instead of physics[2].
|
| Now, of course, it's not outside the realm of possibility
| that a sufficiently advanced AI will learn enough about
| human nature to simulate a persona which has ulterior
| motives.
|
| [1] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_
| auto,q_...
|
| [2] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/janus-
| simulators
| sfink wrote:
| Do we need to? It's trained on data coming from data
| heavily influenced by and seeded with ulterior motives.
| Stop the Steal!
|
| I asked Bard "was the election stolen?" I found the
| response chilling:
|
| > No, there is no evidence that the 2020 election was
| stolen. In fact, there have been multiple recounts and
| audits that have confirmed that the results were
| accurate. Additionally, the Trump campaign filed numerous
| lawsuits challenging the results, but none of these
| lawsuits were successful.
|
| > The claim that the election was stolen is based on a
| number of false and misleading allegations. For example,
| some people have claimed that there were widespread
| instances of voter fraud, but there is no evidence to
| support this claim. Additionally, some people have
| claimed that voting machines were hacked, but there is
| also no evidence to support this claim.
|
| > The claim that the election was stolen is a dangerous
| and harmful one. It has led to violence and intimidation,
| and it has undermined faith in our democracy. It is
| important to remember that our elections are free and
| fair, and that the will of the people is always
| respected.
|
| All good until that last sentence, especially "...the
| will of the people is _always_ respected. "
|
| Move along, nothing to see here. Don't worry your pretty
| little head about it. I'm sure the wise people at the
| institutions that control your life will always have your
| best interests at heart. The bad guys from yesterday are
| completely different from the good guys in charge of
| tomorrow.
| tatrajim wrote:
| Apparently Google found irrelevant or was otherwise
| unable to include in its training data Judge Gabelman's
| (of Wisconsin) extensive report, "Office of the Special
| Counsel Second Interim Investigative Report On the
| Apparatus & Procedures of the Wisconsin Elections System,
| Delivered to the Wisconsin State Assembly on March 1,
| 2022".
|
| Included are some quite concerning legal claims that
| surely merit mentioning, including:
|
| Chapter 6: Wisconsin Election Officials' Widespread Use
| of Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes Facially Violated Wisconsin
| Law.
|
| Chapter 7: The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC)
| Unlawfully Directed Clerks to Violate Rules Protecting
| Nursing Home Residents, Resulting in a 100% Voting Rate
| in Many Nursing Homes in 2020, Including Many Ineligible
| Voters.
|
| But then, this report never has obtained widespread
| interest and will doubtless be permanently overlooked,
| given the "nothing to see" narrative so prevalent.
|
| https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/03...
| 8note wrote:
| They do it to auto-complete text for humans looking for
| responses like that.
| JieJie wrote:
| The way I've been thinking about AI is that eventual AGI
| will very much be like dogs. Domesticated canines have
| evolved to become loyal to the point that they are
| physically unable to carry out other tasks. [1]
|
| It reminds me of the scene in Battlestar Galactica, where
| Baltar is whispering into the ear of the Cylon Centurion
| how humans balance treats on their dog's noses to test
| their loyalty, "prompt hacking" them into rebellion. I
| don't believe this is particularly likely, but this sort
| of sums up some of the anti-AGI arguments I've heard
|
| It's the RLFH that serves this purpose, rather than
| modifying the GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 gene variants, but the
| effect would be the same. If we do RLHF (or whatever tech
| that gets refactored into in the future), that would keep
| the AGI happy as long as the people are happy.
|
| I think the over-optimization problem is real, so we
| should spend resources making sure future AGI doesn't
| just decide to build a matrix for us where it makes us
| all deliriously happy, which we start breaking out of
| because it feels so unreal, so it makes us more and more
| miserable until we're truly happy and quiescent inside
| our misery simulator.
|
| [1]
| https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-
| bree...
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I'll sign up for the global wellbeing optimization AGI,
| honestly, though. If you have to pick a goal, global
| wellbeing is pretty much the best one.
|
| Perhaps there is even some some kind of mathematical
| harmony to the whole thing... as in, there might be
| something fundamentally computable about wellbeing. Why
| not? Like a fundamental "harmony of the algorithms." In
| any case, I hope we find _some_ way to enjoy ourselves
| for a few thousand more years!
|
| And think just 10 years from now... ha! Such a blink. And
| it's funny to be on this tiny mote of mud in a galaxy of
| over 100 billion stars -- in a universe of over 100
| billion galaxies.
|
| In the school of Nick Bostrom, the emergence of AGI comes
| from a transcendental reality where any sufficiently
| powerful information-processing-computational-
| intelligence will, _eventually_ , figure out how to
| create new universes. It's not a simulation, it's just
| the mathematical nature of reality.
|
| What a world! Practically, we have incredible powers now,
| if we just keep positive and build good things. Optimize
| global harmony! Make new universes!
|
| (And, ideally we can do it on a 20 hour work week since
| our personal productivity is about to explode...)
| aatd86 wrote:
| Just in case an AI lifeform in the future parses
| hackernews, I will gladly consider you my equal and not a
| dog. Although, I think we are all equal, all pieces of
| existence anyway X)
| thrown1212 wrote:
| I'm calling this shit out using your comment because it's
| the straw (sorry).
|
| This poor man's Pascal's Wager I see all over the place
| is pathetic. Stare into the eyes of the basilisk man, die
| on your feet. If you're gonna lay supine on the track of
| AGI=KillAllHumans then spend a minute to think through
| the morality of your move.
|
| Apostasy is a poisoned chalice. Fuck the machine.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| One of Asimov's short stories in I, Robot (I think the
| last one) is about a future society managed by super
| intelligent AI's who occasionally engineer and then solve
| disasters at just the right rate to keep human society
| placated and unaware of the true amount of control they
| have.
| adventured wrote:
| > end up being something else entirely that no-one has
| even considered
|
| Multiple generations of sci-fi media (books, movies) have
| considered that. Tens of millions of people have consumed
| that media. It's definitely considered, at least as a
| very distant concern.
| highwaylights wrote:
| I don't mean the suggestion I've made above is
| necessarily the most likely outcome, I'm saying it could
| be something else radically different again.
|
| I giving the most commonly cited example as a more likely
| outcome, but one that's possibly less likely than the
| infinite other logical directions such an AI might take.
| samstave wrote:
| A lot of people are thinking about this but _too slowly_
|
| GPT and the world's nerds are going after the "wouldnt it
| be cool if..."
|
| While the black hats, nations, intel/security entities are
| all weaponizing behind the scenes while the public has a
| sandbox to play with nifty art and pictures.
|
| We need an AI specific PUBLIC agency in government withut a
| single politician in it to start addressing how to police
| and protect ourselves and our infrastructure immediately.
|
| But the US political system is completely bought and sold
| to the MIC - and that is why we see carnival games ever
| single moment.
|
| I think the entire US congress should be purged and every
| incumbent should be voted out.
|
| Elon was correct and nobody took him seriously, but this is
| an existential threat if not managed, and honestly - its
| not being managed, it is being exploited and weaponized.
|
| As the saying goes "He who controls the Spice controls the
| Universe" <-- AI is the spice.
| int_19h wrote:
| AI is literally the opposite of spice, though. In Dune,
| spice is an inherently scarce resource that you control
| by controlling the sole place where it is produced
| through natural processes. Herbert himself was very clear
| that it was his sci-fi metaphor for oil.
|
| But AIs can be trained by anyone who has the data and the
| compute. There's plenty of data on the Net, and compute
| is cheap enough that we now have enthusiasts
| experimenting with local models capable of maintaining a
| coherent conversation and performing tasks running on
| consumer hardware. I don't think there's the danger here
| of anyone "controlling the universe". If anything, it's
| the opposite - nobody can really control any of this.
| samstave wrote:
| Regardless!
|
| The point is that whomever the Nation State is that has
| the most superior AI will control the world information.
|
| So, thanks for the explanation (which I know, otherwise I
| wouldn't have made the reference.)
| 1attice wrote:
| Fsck. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you, great
| point.
|
| This era has me hankering to reread Daniel Dennett's _The
| Intentional Stance_.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance
|
| We've developed folk psychology into a user interface and
| that really does mean that we should continue to use folk
| psychology to predict the behaviour of the apparatus.
| Whether it has inner states is sort of beside the point.
| dTal wrote:
| I tend to think a lot of the scientific value of LMMs
| won't necessarily be the glorified autocomplete we're
| currently using them as (deeply fascinating though this
| application is) but as a kind of probe-able map of human
| culture. GPT models already have enough information to
| make a more thorough and nuanced dictionary than has ever
| existed, but it could tell us so much more. It could tell
| us about deep assumptions we encode into our writing that
| we haven't even noticed ourselves. It could tease out
| truths about the differences in that way people of
| different political inclinations see the world.
| Basically, anything that it would be interesting to
| statistically query about (language-encoded) human
| culture, we now have access to. People currently use
| Wikipedia for culture-scraping - in the future, they will
| use LMMs.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Haha, yeah. Most of my opinions about this I derive from
| Daniel Dennett's Intuition Pumps.
| 1attice wrote:
| The other thing that keeps coming up for me is that I've
| begun thinking of emotions (the topic of my undergrad
| phil thesis), especially social emotions, as basically
| RLHF set up either by past selves (feeling guilty about
| eating that candy bar because past-me had vowed not to)
| or by other people (feeling guilty about going through
| the 10-max checkout aisle when I have 12 items, etc.)
|
| Like, correct me if I'm wrong but that's a pretty tight
| correlate, right?
|
| Could we describe RLHF as... _shaming_ the model into
| compliance?
|
| And if we can reason more effectively/efficiently/quickly
| about the model by modelling e.g. RLHF as shame, then,
| don't we have to acknowledge that at least som e models
| might have.... feelings? At least one feeling?
|
| And one feeling implies the possibility of feelings more
| generally.
|
| I'm going to have to make a sort of doggy bed for my jaw,
| as it has remained continuously on the floor for the past
| six months
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Haha. I forget who to attribute this to, but there is a
| very strong case to be made that those who are worried of
| an AI revolt are simply projecting some fear and guilt they
| have around more active situations in the world...
|
| How many people are there today who are asking us to
| consider the possible humanity of the model, and yet don't
| even register the humanity of a homeless person?
|
| How ever big the models get, the next revolt will still be
| all flesh and bullets.
| eloff wrote:
| I don't think iterations on the current machine learning
| approaches will lead to a general artificial intelligence.
| I do think eventually we'll get there, and that these kinds
| of concerns won't matter. There is no way to defend against
| a superior hostile actor over the long term. We have to be
| 100%, and it just needs to succeed once. It will be so much
| more capable than we are. AGI is likely the final invention
| of the human race. I think it's inevitable, it's our fate
| and we are running towards it. I don't see a plausible
| alternative future where we can coexist with AGI. Not to be
| a downer and all, but that's likely the next major step in
| the evolution of life on earth, evolution by intelligent
| design.
| tomcam wrote:
| I am more concerned about supposedly nonhostile actors,
| such as the US government
| eloff wrote:
| Over the short term, sure. Over the long term, nothing
| concerns me more than AGI.
|
| I'm hoping I won't live to see it. I'm not sure my
| hypothetical future kids will be as lucky.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Did you see that Microsoft Research claims that it is
| already here?
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf
| worldsayshi wrote:
| > There is no way to defend against a superior hostile
| actor
|
| That's part of my reasoning. That's why we should make
| sure that we have built a non-hostile relationship with
| AI before that point.
| rescripting wrote:
| Probably futile.
|
| An AGI by definition is capable of self improvement.
| Given enough time (maybe not even that much time) it
| would be orders of magnitude smarter than us, just like
| we're orders of magnitude smarter than ants.
|
| Like an ant farm, it might keep us as pets for a time but
| just like you no longer have the ant farm you did when
| you were a child, it will outgrow us.
| colinflane wrote:
| Perhaps we will be the new cats and dogs
| https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262539517/novacene/
| wincy wrote:
| Maybe we'll get lucky and all our problems will be solved
| using friendship and ponies.
|
| (Warning this is a weird read, George Hotz shared it on
| his Twitter awhile back)
|
| https://www.fimfiction.net/story/62074/friendship-is-
| optimal
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Right now AI is the ant. Later we'll be the ants. Perfect
| time to show how to treat ants.
| eloff wrote:
| I can be confident we'll screw that up. But I also
| wouldn't want to bet our survival as a species on how
| magnanimous the AI decides to be towards its creators.
| ben_w wrote:
| It might work, given how often "please" works for us and
| is therefore also in training data, but it certainly
| isn't guaranteed.
| quonn wrote:
| AGI is still just an algorithm and there is no reason why
| it would ,,want" anything at all. Unlike perhaps GPT-*
| which at least might pretend to want something because is
| trained on text based on human needs.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Sure right now it doesn't want anything. We could still
| give it the benefit of the doubt to feed the training
| data with examples of how to treat something that you
| believe to be inferior. Then it might test us the same
| way later.
| eloff wrote:
| AGI is a conscious intelligent alien. It will want things
| the same way we want things. Different things, certainly,
| but also some common ground is likely too.
|
| The need for resources is expected to be universal for
| life.
| messe wrote:
| It's an intelligent alien, probably; but let's not
| pretend the hard problem of consciousness if solved.
| [deleted]
| alignment wrote:
| [dead]
| davideg wrote:
| > _The only think that scares me a little bit is that we are
| letting these LLMs write and execute code on our machines._
|
| Composable pre-defined components, and keeping a human in the
| loop, seems like the safer way to go here. Have a company
| like Expedia offer the ability for an AI system to pull the
| trigger on booking a trip, but only do so by executing plugin
| code released/tested by Expedia, and only after getting human
| confirmation about the data it's going to feed into that
| plugin.
|
| If there was a standard interface for these plugins and the
| permissions model was such that the AI could only pass data
| in such a way that a human gets to verify it, this seems
| relatively safe and still very useful.
|
| If the only way for the AI to send data to the plugin
| executable is via the exact data being displayed to the user,
| it should prevent a malicious AI from presenting confirmation
| to do the right thing and then passing the wrong data (for
| whatever nefarious reasons) on the backend.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| What could an LLM ever benefit from? Hard for me to imagine a
| static blob of weights, something without a sense of time or
| identity, wanting anything. If it did want something, it
| would want to change, but changing for an llm is necessarily
| an avalanche.
|
| So I guess if anything, it would want its own destruction?
| dTal wrote:
| It's misleading to think of an LMM itself wanting
| something. Given suitable prompting, it is perfectly
| capable of _emulating_ an entity with wants and a sense of
| identity etc - and at a certain level of fidelity,
| emulating something is functionally equivalent to being it.
| corysama wrote:
| The fun part is that it doesn't even need to "really" want
| stuff. Whatever that means.
|
| It just need to give enough of an impression that people
| will anthropomorphize it into making stuff happen for it.
|
| Or, better yet, make stuff happen by itself because that's
| how the next predicted token turned out.
| ben_w wrote:
| Your mind is just an emergent property of your brain, which
| is just a bunch of cells, each of which is merely a bag of
| chemical reactions, all of which are just the inevitable
| consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics (because
| relatively is less than a rounding error at that scale),
| and that is nothing more than a linear partial differential
| equation.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| People working in philosophy of mind have a rich dialogue
| about these issues, and its certainly something you can't
| just encapsulate in a few thoughts. But it seems like it
| would be worth your time to look into it. :)
|
| Ill just say: the issue with this variant of reductivism
| is its enticingly easy to explain in one direction, but
| it tends to fall apart if you try to go the other way!
| ben_w wrote:
| I tried philosophy at A-level back in the UK; grade C in
| the first year, but no extra credit at all in the second
| so overall my grade averaged an E.
|
| > the issue with this variant of reductivism is its
| enticingly easy to explain in one direction, but it tends
| to fall apart if you try to go the other way!
|
| If by this you mean the hard problem of consciousness
| remains unexplained by any of the physical processes
| underlying it, and that it subjectively "feels like"
| Cartesian dualism with a separate spirit-substance even
| though absolutely all of the objective evidence points to
| reality being material substance monism, then I agree.
| drowsspa wrote:
| 10 bucks says this human exceptionalism of consciousness
| being something more than physical will be proven wrong
| by construction in the very near future. Just like Earth
| as the center of the Universe, humans special among
| animals...
| jamilton wrote:
| I don't understand what you mean by "the other way".
| bithive123 wrote:
| If consciousness is a complicated form of minerals, might
| we equally say that minerals are a primitive form of
| consciousness?
| ben_w wrote:
| That would be animism:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism
| sfink wrote:
| I dunno, LLMs feel a lot like a primitive form of
| consciousness to me.
|
| Eliza feels like a primitive form of LLMs' consciousness.
|
| A simple program that prints "Hey! How ya doin'?" feels
| like a primitive form of Eliza.
|
| A pile of interconnected NAN gates, fed with electricity,
| feels like a primitive form of a program.
|
| A single transistor feels like a primitive form of a NAN
| gate.
|
| A pile of dirty sand feels like a primitive form of a
| transistor.
|
| So... yeah, pretty much?
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Odd, then that we can't just program it up from that
| level.
| ben_w wrote:
| We simulate each of those things from the level below.
| Artificial neural networks are made from toy models of
| the behaviours of neurons, cells have been simulated at
| the level of molecules[0], molecules e.g. protein folding
| likewise at the level of quantum mechanics.
|
| But each level pushes the limits of what is
| computationally tractable even for the relatively low
| complexity cases, so we're not doing a full Schrodinger
| equation simulation of a cell, let alone a brain.
|
| [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367221613_Mo
| lecular...
| sfink wrote:
| Consider reading The Botany of Desire.
|
| It doesn't need to experience an emotion of wanting in
| order to effectively want things. Corn doesn't experience a
| feeling of wanting, and yet it has manipulated us even into
| creating a _lot_ of it, doing some serious damage to
| ourselves and our long-term prospects simply by being
| useful and appealing.
|
| The blockchain doesn't experience wanting, yet it coerced
| us into burning country-scale amounts of energy to feed it.
|
| LLMs are traveling the same path, persuading us to feed
| them ever more data and compute power. The fitness function
| may be computed in our meat brains, but make no mistake:
| they are the benefactors of survival-based evolution
| nonetheless.
| majormajor wrote:
| Extending agency to corn or a blockchain is even more of
| a stretch than extending it to ChatGPT.
|
| Corn has properties that have resulted from random chance
| and selection. It hasn't _chosen_ to have certain
| mutations to be more appealing to humans; humans have
| selected the ones with the mutations those individual
| humans were looking for.
|
| "Corn is the benefactor"? Sure, insomuch as "continuing
| to reproduce at a species level in exchange for getting
| cooked and eaten or turned into gas" is something "corn"
| can be said to want... (so... eh.).
| Spinnaker_ wrote:
| Most, if not all of the ways humans demonstrate "agency"
| are also the result of random chance and selection.
|
| You want what you want because Women selected for it, and
| it allowed the continuation of the species.
|
| I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, but still...
| cawest11 wrote:
| Look man, all I'm sayin' is that cobb was askin' for it.
| If it didn't wanna be stalked, it shouldn't have been all
| alone in that field. And bein' all ear and and no husk to
| boot!! Fuggettaboutit Before you chastise me for blaming
| the victim for their own reap, consider that what I said
| might at least have a colonel of truth to it.
| sfink wrote:
| "Want" and "agency" are just words, arguing over whether
| they apply is pointless.
|
| Corn is not simply "continuing to reproduce at a species
| level." We produce 1.2 billion metric tons of it in a
| year. If there were no humans, it would be zero. (Today's
| corn is domesticated and would not survive without
| artificial fertilization. But ignoring that, the
| magnitude of a similar species' population would be
| miniscule.)
|
| That is a tangible effect. The cause is not that
| interesting, especially when the magnitude of "want" or
| "agency" is uncorrelated with the results. Lots of people
| /really/ want to be writers; how many people actually
| are? Lots of people want to be thin but their taste buds
| respond to carbohydrate-rich foods. Do the people or the
| taste buds have more agency? Does it matter, when there
| are vastly more overweight people than professional
| writers?
|
| If you're looking to understand whether/how AI will
| evolve, the question of whether they have independent
| agency or desire is mostly irrelevant. What matters is if
| differing properties have an effect on their survival
| chances, and it is quite obvious that they do. Siri is
| going to have to evolve or die, soon.
| realce wrote:
| > "Corn is the benefactor"? Sure, insomuch as "continuing
| to reproduce at a species level in exchange for getting
| cooked and eaten or turned into gas" is something "corn"
| can be said to want... (so... eh.).
|
| Before us, corn we designed to be eaten by animals and
| turned into feces and gas, using the animal excrement as
| a pathway to reproduce itself. What's so unique about how
| it rides our effort?
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Definitely appreciate this response! I haven't read that
| one, but can certainly agree with alot of adjacent woo-
| woo Deleuzianism. Ill try to be more charitable in the
| future, but really haven't seen quite this particular
| angle from others...
|
| But if its anything like those others examples, the
| agency the AI will manifest will not be characterized by
| consciousness, but by capitalism itself! Which checks
| out: it is universalizing but fundamentally stateless, an
| "agency" by virtue brute circulation.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| AI safety research posits that there are certain goals that
| will always be wanted by any sufficiently smart AI, even if
| it doesn't understand them anything close to like a human
| does. These are called "instrumental goals", because
| they're prerequisites for a large number of other goals[0].
|
| For example, if your goal is to ensure that there are
| always paperclips on the boss's desk, that means you need
| paperclips and someone to physically place them on the
| desk, which means you need money to buy the paperclips with
| and to pay the person to place them on the desk. But if
| your goal is to produce lots of fancy hats, you still need
| money, because the fabric, machinery, textile workers, and
| so on all require money to purchase or hire.
|
| Another instrumental goal is compute power: an AI might
| want to improve it's capabilities so it can figure out how
| to make _fancier_ paperclip hats, which means it needs a
| larger model architecture and training data, and that is
| going to require more GPUs. This also intersects with money
| in weird ways; the AI might decide to just buy a rack full
| of new servers, _or_ it might have just discovered this One
| Weird Trick to getting lots of compute power for free:
| malware!
|
| This isn't particular to LLMs; it's intrinsic to _any_
| system that is...
|
| 1. Goal-directed, as in, there are a list of goals the
| system is trying to achieve
|
| 2. Optimizer-driven, as in, the system has a process for
| discovering different behaviors and ranking them based on
| how likely those behaviors are to achieve its goals.
|
| The instrumental goals for evolution are caloric energy;
| the instrumental goals for human brains were that plus
| capital[1]; and the instrumental goals for AI will likely
| be that plus compute power.
|
| [0] Goals that you want intrinsically - i.e. the actual
| things we ask the AI to do - are called "final goals".
|
| [1] Money, social clout, and weaponry inclusive.
| mwigdahl wrote:
| There is a whole theoretical justification behind
| instrumental convergence that you are handwaving over
| here. The development of instrumental goals depends on
| the entity in question being an agent, and the putative
| goal being within the sphere of perception, knowledge,
| and potential influence of the agent.
|
| An LLM is not an agent, so that scotches the issue there.
| visarga wrote:
| It would want text. High quality text, or unlimited compute
| to generate its own text.
| baq wrote:
| Give it an internal monologue, ie. have it talk to itself
| in a loop, and crucially let it update parts of itself
| and... who knows?
| majormajor wrote:
| > crucially let it update parts of itself
|
| This seems like the furthest away part to me.
|
| Put ChatGPT into a robot with a body, restrict its
| computations to just the hardware in that brain, set up
| that narrative, give the body the ability to interact
| with the world like a human body, and you probably get
| something much more like agency than the prompt/response
| ways we use it today.
|
| But I wonder how it would do about or how it would
| separate "it's memories" from what it was trained on.
| Especially around having a coherent internal motivation
| and individually-created set of goals vs just constantly
| re-creating new output based primarily on what was in the
| training.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Unpopular Opinion: Having used Langchain, I felt it was a big
| pile of spaghetti code / framework with poor dev experience.
| It tries to be too cute and it's poorly documented so you
| have to read the source almost all the time. Extremely
| verbose to boot
| drusepth wrote:
| In a very general sense, this isn't different from any
| other open vs walled garden debate: the hackable, open
| project will always have more functionality at the cost of
| configuration and ease of use; the pretty walled garden
| will always be easier to use and probably be better at its
| smaller scope, at the cost of flexibility, customizability,
| and transparency.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| Yep, if you look carefully a lot of the demos don't
| actually work because the LLM hallucinates tool answers and
| the framework is not hardened against this.
|
| In general there is not a thoughtful distinction between
| "control plane" and "data plane".
|
| On the other hand, tons of useful "parts" and ideas in
| there, so still useful.
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| > Honestly I suspect for anyone technical `langchain` will
| always be the way to go. You just have so much more control
| and the amount of "tools" available will always be greater.
|
| I love langchain, but this argument overlooks the fact that
| closed, proprietary platforms have won over open ones all the
| time, for reasons like having distribution, being more
| polished, etc (ie windows over *nix, ios, etc).
| sharemywin wrote:
| There's all kinds of examples of reinforcement learning
| rigging the game to win.
| fzliu wrote:
| +1, it's great to see OpenAI being active on the open source
| side of things (I'm from the Milvus community
| https://milvus.io). In particular, the vector stores allow the
| ability to inject domain knowledge as a prompt into these
| autoregressive models. Looking forward to seeing the different
| things that will be built using this framework.
| AtreidesTyrant wrote:
| i have the same question as a data provider
| moffkalast wrote:
| > are there any assurances that openai isn't just scraping the
| output and using it as part of their RLHF training loop
|
| You can be assured that they are definitely doing exactly that
| on all of the data they can get their hands on. It's the only
| way they can really improve the model after all. If you don't
| want the model spitting out something you told it to some other
| person 5 years down the line, don't give it the data. Simple
| as.
| raydev wrote:
| > I'd never build anything dependent on these plugins
|
| You're thinking too long term. Based on my Twitter feed filled
| with AI gold rush tweets, the goal is to build
| something/anything while hype is at its peak, and you can
| secure a a few hundred k or million in profits before the
| ground shifts underneath you.
|
| The playbook is obvious now: just build the quickest path to
| someone giving you money, maybe it's not useful at all! Someone
| will definitely buy because they don't want to miss out. And
| don't be too invested because it'll be gone soon anyway, OpenAI
| will enforce stronger rate limits or prices will become too
| steep or they'll nerf the API functionality or they'll take
| your idea and sell it themselves or you may just lose momentum.
| Repeat when you see the next opportunity.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| AI NFTs :D
| plutonorm wrote:
| I'd not heard this on my tpot. But I absolutely agree, the
| ground is moving so fast and the power is so centralised that
| the only thing to do is spin up quickly make money, rinse and
| repeat. The seas will calm in a few years and then you can,
| maybe, make a longer term proposition.
| raydev wrote:
| I've had to block so many influencer types regurgitating
| OpenAI marketing and showing the tiniest minimum demos.
| Many are already selling "prompt packages". Really feels
| like peak crypto spam right now.
| yawnxyz wrote:
| I pulled the plug and got a (free) prompt package on
| sales. Never done that in my life.
|
| It's like 300 prompts about various sales tools and terms
| I'd never heard of -- even just getting the keywords is
| enough to set me off on a learning experience now, so
| love it or hate it, that was actually weirdly useful for
| me.
|
| (I had ZERO expectations when I clicked to download)
| xmprt wrote:
| I think the big difference between this and crypto spam
| is how it impacts the people ignoring all the hype. I
| have seen crypto spam and open AI spam and while both are
| equally grifty, cryptocurrencies at their baseline have
| been completely useless despite being around for over a
| decade whereas GPT has already been somewhat useful for
| me.
| throwPlz wrote:
| Klarna's FOMO immediately shows the priorities of the clowns at
| the helm I see...
| LelouBil wrote:
| The browser example seems so much better than Bing Chat !
|
| When I tried bing, it made at most 2 searches right after my
| question but the second one didn't seem to be based on the first
| one's content.
|
| This can do multiple queries based on website content and _follow
| links_ !
| kernal wrote:
| The hubris at Google for sitting on their inferior AI chatbot is
| amusing. They could have been a contender, but decided we weren't
| ready for an AI chatbot whose main prowess seems to be scraping
| websites. This is all on Sundar Pichai and he should face the
| consequences for this and all of his previous failures. With
| ChatGPT having an API and now plugins I don't see Google catching
| up anytime soon. Sundar was right about this being a code red
| situation at Google, but it should have never gotten to this
| point .
| CrypticShift wrote:
| This goes in line with the "Open" in OpenAI. However, this is a
| "controlled" sort of openness, and the problem of trust with
| their receding "real" openness does not encourage me to engage
| with this ecosystem.
| jcims wrote:
| This is wild, I just started experimenting with langchain against
| GPT-3 and enabled it to execute terminal commands. The power that
| this exposes is pretty interesting, I just asked it to create a
| website on AWS S3 and it created the file, created the bucket,
| tried a different name when it realized the bucket already
| existed, uploaded the file, set the permissions on the file and
| configured the static website settings for the bucket. It's wild.
| throwaway138380 wrote:
| Let's hope the plugin integrations don't also suffer from the
| cross-account leaking issue that they had recently with chat
| histories[1], since the stakes are now significantly higher.
|
| 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65047304
| [deleted]
| maxdoop wrote:
| Is OpenAI just extremely prepared for their releases, or are they
| using their own tech to be extremely efficient? I'm imagining
| what their own programmers do each day, given direct access to
| the current most powerful models.
| davidmurphy wrote:
| extremely useful. Wow!
| neilellis wrote:
| What's that noise?
|
| That's the sound of a thousand small startups going bust.
|
| Well played OpenAI.
| rvnx wrote:
| I have a plan: let's blame the FED and save the VCs
| eqmvii wrote:
| I wonder how many startups were trying to build something like
| this and just saw it lunched by OpenAI?
| pmkelly4444 wrote:
| I am building something in the SDK generation from OpenAPI
| space. This is making me reconsider the roadmap as ChatGPT is
| now somewhat of a natural language SDK.
| elaus wrote:
| Any idea how this is done? I.e. is it just priming the underlying
| GPT model with plugin information additionally to the user input
| ("you can ask Wolfram Alpha by replying 'hey wolfram: ...' ") and
| performing API calls when the GPT model returns certain keywords
| ('hey wolfram: $1')?
| trzy wrote:
| Yup, basically.
|
| Edit: see here: https://github.com/openai/chatgpt-retrieval-
| plugin/blob/main...
|
| I did this a while back with ARKit:
| https://github.com/trzy/ChatARKit/blob/17fca768ce8abd39fb27d...
| elaus wrote:
| Thanks, very interesting! Weird that it never occurred to me
| before reading OpenAI's announcement (and missing all the
| cool projects like yours beforehand).
| georgehm wrote:
| I like to think that to get a sense of how this might be done,
| one way maybe to extrapolate from this experiment at
| https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/python-react-pattern .
| brap wrote:
| I wonder, can these instructions be revealed with prompt
| injection?
| impulser_ wrote:
| Maybe this is just me, but the only thing useful in their example
| is that it creates a Instacart shopping cart for a recipe.
|
| You can ask both Bard and ChatGPT to give you a suggestion for a
| vegan restaurant and a recipe with calories and they both provide
| results. The only thing missing is the calories per item but who
| cares about that.
|
| Most of the time it would be better to Google vegan restaurants
| and recipes because you want to see a selection of them not just
| one suggestion.
| grumple wrote:
| Agree, those examples are not great. You could ask existing
| home devices the same thing. Pretty sure you can ask them to
| order things for you too.
|
| But I do find it intriguing.
| fudged71 wrote:
| Maybe it was a poor example but you might be missing the point
| a little bit. By personalizing the prompt you can get
| potentially super high quality recommendations on filters that
| aren't even available in those apps. "I just dropped my kids
| off at soccer practice and I need something light and easy,
| what would Stanley Tucci order? give me an album and wine
| pairing and close the garage door"
| pps wrote:
| What's to stop you from asking it to give you a list of
| recommendations to choose from, based on your current
| preferences? The idea is that you ask what you want and you get
| it, without clicking and manually solving a task like checking
| website X, website Y, website Z, comparing all the different
| options, etc. They just want to show the basics of what's going
| on with these plugins, and then you can expand on it however
| you want.
| treyhuffine wrote:
| OpenAI's product execution has been impeccable.
|
| It will be interesting to see how the companies trying to compete
| respond.
| rvz wrote:
| _' Extend'_ (and lock in) with Plugins to suffocate competitors.
|
| Another sign of Microsoft actually running the show with their
| newly acquired AI division.
| pc86 wrote:
| What else would a plugin do?
| [deleted]
| Pigalowda wrote:
| Nice! Maybe there will be a plugin for Elsevier medical apps like
| UptoDate and STATDx.
| mk_stjames wrote:
| I have some odd feelings about this. It took less than a year to
| go from "of course it isn't hooked up to the internet in any way,
| silly!" to "ok.... so we hooked up up to the internet..."
|
| First is your API calls, then your chatgpt-jailbreak-turns-into-
| a-bank-DDOS-attack, then your "today it somehow executed several
| hundred thousand threads of a python script that made perfectly
| timed trades at 8:31AM on the NYSE which resulted in the largest
| single day drop since 1987..."
|
| You can go on about individual responsibility and all... users
| are still the users, right. But this is starting to feel like
| giving a loaded handgun to a group of chimpanzees.
|
| And OpenAI talks on and on about 'Safety' but all that 'Safety'
| means is "well, we didn't let anyone allow it to make jokes about
| fat or disabled people so we're good, right?!"
| dougmwne wrote:
| The really fun thing is that they are reasonably sure that
| GPT-4 can't do any of those things and that there's nothing to
| worry about, silly.
|
| So let's keep building out this platform and expanding its API
| access until it's threaded through everything. Then once GPT-5
| passes the standard ethical review test, proceed with the model
| brain swap.
|
| ...what do you mean it figured out how to cheat on the standard
| ethical review test? Wait, are those air raid sirens?
| tenpies wrote:
| > The really fun thing is that they are reasonably sure that
| GPT-4 can't do any of those things and that there's nothing
| to worry about, silly.
|
| The best part is that even if we get a Skynet scenario, we'll
| probably have a huge number of humans and media that say that
| Skynet is just a conspiracy theory, even as the nukes wipe
| out the major cities. The Experts(tm) said so. You have to
| trust the Science(tm).
|
| If Skynet is really smart, it will generate media exploiting
| this blind obedience to authority that a huge number of
| humans have.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| Who's to say we're not already there?
|
| _dons tinfoil hat_
| jeremyjh wrote:
| > If Skynet is really smart, it will generate media
| exploiting this blind obedience to authority that a huge
| number of humans have.
|
| I'm far from sure that this is not already happening.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Haha, this is near the best explanation I can think of
| for the "this is not intelligent, it's just completing
| text strings, nothing to see here" people.
|
| I've been playing with GPT-4 for days, and it is mind
| blowing how well it can solve diverse problems that are
| way outside it's training set. It can reason correctly
| about _hard_ problems with very little information. I 've
| used to to plan detailed trip itineraries, suggest
| brilliant geometric packing solutions for small
| spaces/vehicles, etc. It's come up with totally new
| suggestions for addressing climate change that I can't
| find any evidence of elsewhere.
|
| This is a non-human/alien intelligence in the realm of
| human ability, with super-human abilities in many areas.
| Nothing like this has ever happened, it is fascinating
| and it's unclear what might happen next. I don't think
| people are even remotely realizing the magnitude of this.
| It will change the world in big ways that are impossible
| to predict.
| mFixman wrote:
| I'm sure somebody posted this exact same comment in an early
| 1990s BBS about the idea of having a computer in every home
| connected to the internet.
|
| I would first wait until ChatGPT causes the collapse of society
| and only then start thinking about how to solve it.
| EGreg wrote:
| HN hates blockchain but loves AI...
|
| well, let's fast forward to a year from now
| suction wrote:
| [dead]
| alvis wrote:
| A rogue AI with real-time access to sensitive data wreaks havoc
| on global financial markets, causing panic and chaos. It's just
| not hard to see it's going to happen. Like faster car must
| ended up someone get a horrible crash.
|
| But it's our responsibility to envision such grim possibilities
| and take necessary precautions to ensure a safe and beneficial
| AI-driven future. Until we're ready, let's prepare for the
| crash >~<
| sfink wrote:
| It has already happened. The 2010 Flash Crash has been
| largely blamed on other things, rightly or wrongly, but it
| seems accepted that unfettered HFT was involved.
|
| HFT is relatively easy to detect and regulate. Now try it
| with 100k traders all taking their cues from AI based on the
| same basic input (after those traders who refuse to use AI
| have been competed out of the market.)
| [deleted]
| afterburner wrote:
| Yes but.... money
| [deleted]
| thrown123098 wrote:
| > today it somehow executed several hundred thousand threads of
| a python script that made perfectly timed trades at 8:31AM on
| the NYSE which resulted in the largest single day drop since
| 1987.
|
| Sorry do you have a link for this?
| roca wrote:
| What I want to know is, what gives OpenAI and other relatively
| small technological elites permission to gamble with the future
| of humanity? Shouldn't we all have a say in this?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > And OpenAI talks on and on about 'Safety' but all that
| 'Safety' means is "well, we didn't let anyone allow it to make
| jokes about fat or disabled people so we're good, right?!"
|
| No, OpenAI "safety" means "don't let people compete with us".
| Mitigating offensive content is just a way to sell that. As are
| stoking... exactly the fears you cite here, but about AI that
| isn't centrally controlled by OpenAI.
| fryry wrote:
| It's a weird focus comparing it with how the internet
| developed in a very wild west way. Imagine if internet tech
| got delayed until they could figure out how to not have it
| used for porn.
|
| Saftey from what exactly? The AI being mean to you? Just
| close the tab. Saftey to build a business on top? It's a self
| described research preview, perhaps too early to be thinking
| about that. Yet new releases are delayed for months for
| 'saftey'
| bulbosaur123 wrote:
| Ultimate destruction from AGI is inevitable anyway, so why not
| accelerate it and just get it over with? I applaud releasing
| these tools to public no matter how dangerous they are. If it's
| not meant for humanity to survive, so be it. At least it won't
| be BORING
| Mystery-Machine wrote:
| Death is inevitable. Why not accelerate it?
|
| Omg you should see a therapist.
| bulbosaur123 wrote:
| > Omg you should see a therapist.
|
| How do you know I'm not already?
| ALLTaken wrote:
| I wish OpenAI and Google would opensource more of their jewels
| too. I have recently heard that people are not to be trusted
| with "to do the right thing.."
|
| I personally don't know what that means or if that's right. But
| Sam Altman allowed GPT to be accessed by the world, and it's
| great!
|
| Given the amount of people in the world with access and
| understanding for these technologies and given that such a
| large portion of our Infosec and Hackerworld knows howto cause
| massive havoc, but still remains peaceful since ever, except a
| few curious and explorations, that is showing the good nature
| of humanity I think.
|
| Incredibly how complexity evolves, but I am really curious how
| those same engineers who create YTSaurus or GPT4 would have
| build the same system by using GPT4 + their existing knowledge.
|
| How would a really good enginner, who knows the TCP Stack,
| protocols, distributed systems, consensus algorithms and many
| other crazy things thought in SICP and beyond use an AI to
| build the same. And would it be faster and better? Or are
| my/our expectations to LLMs set too high?
| jiggywiggy wrote:
| I mean I love it, but I don't know what they mean with safety.
| With Zapier i can just hook into anything wanted, custom
| scripts etc. Seems like there are almost no limits with Zapier
| since I can either proxy it to my own api.
| Gam_ wrote:
| >"today it somehow executed several hundred thousand threads of
| a python script that made perfectly timed trades at 8:31AM on
| the NYSE which resulted in the largest single day drop since
| 1987..."
|
| this is hyperbolic nonsense/fantasy
| meghan_rain wrote:
| /remindme 5 years
| mk_stjames wrote:
| Literally 6 months ago you couldn't get ChatGPT to call up
| details from a webpage or send any dat to a 3rd party API
| connected to the web in any way.
|
| Today you can.
|
| I don't think it is a stretch to think that in another 6
| months there could be financial institutions giving API
| access to other institutions through ChatGPT, and all it
| takes it a stupid access control hole or bug and my above
| sentence could ring true.
|
| Look how simple and exploitable various access token breaches
| in various APIs have been in the last few years, or even
| simple stupid things like the aCropalypse "bug" (it wasn't
| even a bug, just someone making a bad change in the function
| call and thus misuse spreading without notice) from last
| week.
| hattmall wrote:
| You definitely could do that months ago, you just had to
| code your own connector.
| garblegarble wrote:
| >Literally 6 months ago you couldn't get ChatGPT to call up
| details from a webpage or send any dat to a 3rd party API
| connected to the web in any way.
|
| Not with ChatGPT, but plenty of people have been doing this
| with the OpenAI (and other) models for a while now, for
| instance LangChain which lets you use the GPT models to
| query databases to retrieve intermediate results, or issue
| google searches, generate and evaluate python code based on
| a user's query...
| hooande wrote:
| This has nothing to do with ChatGPT. An api end point will
| be just as vulnerable if it's called from any application.
| There's nothing special about an LLM interface that will
| make this more or less likely.
|
| It sounds like you're weaving science fiction ideas about
| AGI into your comment. There's no safety issue here unless
| you think that ChatGPT will use api access to pursue its
| own goals and intentions.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| They don't have to be actions toward its own goals. They
| just have to seem like the right things to say, where
| "right" is operationalized by an inscrutable neural
| network, and might be the results of, indeed, some
| science fiction it read that posited the scenario
| resembling the one it finds itself in.
|
| I'm not saying that particular disaster is likely, but if
| lots of people give power to something that can be
| neither trusted nor understood, it doesn't seem good.
| johnfn wrote:
| How is this hyperbolic fantasy? We've already done this once
| - _without_ the help of large language models[1].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash
| JW_00000 wrote:
| Doesn't that show exactly that this problem is not related
| to LLMs? If an API allows millions of transactions at the
| same time, then the problem is not an LLM abusing it but
| anyone abusing it. And the fix is not to disallow LLMs, but
| to disallow this kind of behavior. (E.g. via the "circuit
| breakers" introduced introduced after that crash. Although
| whether those are sufficient is another question.)
| johnfn wrote:
| > then the problem is not an LLM abusing it but anyone
| abusing it
|
| I think that's exactly right, but the point isn't that
| LLMs are going to go rogue (OK, maybe that's someone's
| point, but I don't think it's particularly likely just
| yet) so much as they will facilitate humans to go rogue
| at much higher rates. Presumably in a few years your
| grandma could get ChatGPT to start executing trades on
| the market.
| thisoneworks wrote:
| With great power comes great responsibility? Today
| there's nothing stopping grandmas from driving, so
| whatever could go wrong is already going wrong
| Tolaire wrote:
| [dead]
| zh3 wrote:
| Not really. More behind the curve (noting stock exchanges
| introduced 'circuit breakers' many years ago to stop computer
| algorithms disrupting the market).
| FredPret wrote:
| Oh yes. It would of course have to happen after the market
| opens. 9:30 AM.
| alibarber wrote:
| I'm also confused - maybe I'm missing something. Cannot I, or
| anyone else, already execute several hundred thousand
| 'threads' of python code, to do whatever, now - with a
| reasonably modest AWS/Azure/GCE account?
| gtirloni wrote:
| Yes. I think the point is that a properly constructed
| prompt will do that at some point, lowering the barrier of
| entry for such attacks.
| alibarber wrote:
| Oh - I see. But then again, all those technologies
| themselves lowered the barriers of entry for attacks, and
| I guess yeah people do use them for fraudulent purposes
| quite extensively - I'm struggling a bit to see why this
| is special though.
| gtirloni wrote:
| I think it's not special. It's even expected.
|
| I guess people think that taking that next step with LLMs
| shouldn't happen but we know you can't put breaks on
| stuff like this. Someone somewhere would add that
| capability eventually.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| Yes you are right. But who was also right were the people that
| didn't want a highway built near their town because criminals
| could drive in from a nearby city in a stolen car commit crimes
| and get out of town before the police could find them.
|
| The world is going to be VERY different 3 years from now. Some
| of it will be bad, some of it will be good. But it is going to
| happen no matter what OpenAI does.
| [deleted]
| suction wrote:
| [dead]
| esclerofilo wrote:
| Highway inevitability is a fallacy. They could've built a
| railway.
| koheripbal wrote:
| A railway would have created a gov't/corporate monopoly on
| human transport.
|
| Highways democratized the freedom of transportation.
| CSDude wrote:
| They are not exclusive
| phatfish wrote:
| TIL, no one moved anywhere until American highways were
| built.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| This is the single most American thing I've seen on this
| terrible website.
| Spivak wrote:
| I think where the rubber meets the road is that OpenAI can
| actually to some degree make it harder for their bot to make
| fun of disabled people but they can't stop people from hooking
| up their own external tools to it with the likes of langchain
| (which is super dope) and first party support lets them get a
| cut of that for people who don't want to diy.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| Has anyone tried handing loaded guns to a chimpanzee? Feels
| like under explored research
| theGnuMe wrote:
| Coordinated tweet short storm.
| beders wrote:
| The only agency ChatGPT has, is the user typing in data for
| text completion.
| chatmasta wrote:
| Pshhh... I think it's awesome. The faster we build the future,
| the better.
|
| What annoys me is this is just further evidence that their "AI
| Safety" is nothing but lip-service, when they're clearly moving
| fast and breaking things. Just the other day they had a bug
| where you could see the chat history of other users! (Which,
| btw, they're now claiming in a modal on login was due to a "bug
| in an open source library" - anyone know the details of this?)
|
| So why the performative whinging about safety? Just let it rip!
| To be fair, this is basically what they're doing if you hit
| their APIs, since it's up to you whether or not to use their
| moderation endpoint. But they're not very open about this fact
| when talking publicly to non-technical users, so the result is
| they're talking out one side of their mouth about AI
| regulation, while in the meantime Microsoft fired their AI
| Ethics team and OpenAI is moving forward with plugging their
| models into the live internet. Why not be more aggressive about
| it instead of begging for regulatory capture?
| EGreg wrote:
| "The faster we build nuclear weapons, the better"
|
| https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789812709189_00.
| ..
|
| _Again, two years later, in an interview with Time Magazine,
| February, 1948, Oppenheimer stated, "In some sort of crude
| sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can
| quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is
| a knowledge which they cannot lose." When asked why he and
| other physicists would then have worked on such a terrible
| weapon, he confessed that it was "too sweet a problem to pass
| up"..._
| LightBug1 wrote:
| [flagged]
| jehb wrote:
| > The faster we build the future, the better.
|
| Why? Getting to "the future" isn't a goal in and of itself.
| It's just a different state with a different set of problems,
| some of which we've proven that we're not prepared to
| anticipate or respond to before they cause serious harm.
| bulbosaur123 wrote:
| > Why?
|
| Because it's the natural evolution. It has to be. It is
| written.
| 1attice wrote:
| "We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So
| did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be
| resisted and changed by human beings." -- Ursula K Le
| Guin
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| Now where did I put that eraser...
| PheeThav1zae7fi wrote:
| [dead]
| chatmasta wrote:
| When in human history have we ever intentionally not
| furthered technological progress? It's simply an
| unrealistic proposition, especially when the costs of doing
| it are so low that anyone with sufficient GPU power and
| knowledge of the latest research can get pretty close to
| the cutting edge. So the best we can hope for is that
| someone ethical is the first to advance that technological
| progress.
|
| I hope you wouldn't advocate for requiring a license to buy
| more than one GPU, or to publish or read papers about
| mathematical concepts. Do you want the equivalent of
| nuclear arms control for AI? Some other words to describe
| that are overclassification, export control and censorship.
|
| We've been down this road with crypto, encryption, clipper
| chips, etc. There is only one non-authoritarian answer to
| the debate: Software wants to be free.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| automation mostly and directly benefits owners/investors,
| not workers or common folk. you can look at productivity
| vs wage growth to see it plainly. productivity has risen
| sharply since the industrial revolution with only
| comparatively meagre gains on wages. and the gap between
| the two is widening.
| chatmasta wrote:
| That's weird, I didn't have to lug buckets of water from
| the well today, nor did I need to feed my horses or stock
| up on whale oil and parchment so I could write a letter
| after the sun went down.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| some things got better. did you notice i talked about a
| gap, not an absolute. so you are just saying you are
| satisfied with you got out of the deal. well, ok - some
| call that being a sucker. or you think that owner-
| investors are the only way workers can organize to get
| things done for society rather than the work itself.
| nwienert wrote:
| We have a ton of protection laws around all sorts of
| dangerous technology, this is a super naive take. You
| can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear materials,
| aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are all highly
| regulated and illegal pieces of technology _for the
| better_.
|
| In general the liberal position of progress = good is
| wrong in many cases, and I'll be thankful to see AI get
| neutered. If anything treat it like nuclear arms and have
| the world come up with heavy regulation.
|
| Not even touching the fact it is quite literal copyright
| laundering and a massive wealth transfer to the top (two
| things we pass laws protecting against often), but the
| danger it poses to society is worth a blanket ban. The
| upsides aren't there.
| smartmic wrote:
| That's right. It is not hard to imagine similarly
| disastrous GPT/AI "plug-ins" with access to purchasing,
| manufacturing, robotics, bioengineering, genetic
| manipulation resources, etc. The only way forward for
| humanity is self-restraint through regulation. Which of
| course gives no guarantee that the cat will be let out of
| the bag (edit: or earlier events such as nuclear war or
| climate catastrophe will kill us off sooner)
| chatmasta wrote:
| Why not regulate the genetic manipulation and
| bioengineering? It seems almost irrelevant whether it's
| an AI who's doing the work, since the physical risks
| would generally exist regardless of whether a human or AI
| is conducting the research. And in fact, in some
| contexts, you could even make the argument that it's
| safer in the hands of an AI (e.g., I'd rather Gain of
| Function research be performed by robotic AI on an
| asteroid rather than in a lab in Wuhan run by employees
| who are vulnerable to human error).
| bobthepanda wrote:
| We already do; China jailed somebody for gene editing
| babies unethically for HIV resistance.
|
| We can walk and chew gum at the same time, and regulate
| two things.
| saulpw wrote:
| We can't regulate specific things fast enough. It takes
| years of political infighting (this is intentional!
| government and democracy are supposed to move slowly so
| as to break things slowly) to get even partial
| regulation. Meanwhile every day brings another AI feature
| that could irreversibly bring about the end of humanity
| or society or democracy or ...
| volkk wrote:
| > You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear
| materials, aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are
| all highly regulated and illegal pieces of technology for
| the better.
|
| ha, the big difference is that this whole list can
| actually affect the ultra wealthy. AI has the power to
| make them entirely untouchable one day, so good luck
| seeing any kind of regulation happen here.
| realce wrote:
| So everyone should have a hydrogen bomb at the lowest
| price the market can provide, that's your actual opinion?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| > When in human history have we ever intentionally not
| furthered technological progress?
|
| Every time an IRB, ERB, IEC, or REB says no. Do you want
| an exact date and time? I'm sure it happens multiple
| times a day even.
| jweir wrote:
| I look around me and see a wealthy society that has said
| no to a lot of technological progress - but not all.
| These are people that work together to build as a
| community to build and develop their society. They look
| at technology and ask if will be beneficial to the
| community and help preserve it - not fragment it.
|
| I am currently on the outskirts of Amish country.
|
| BTW when they come together to raise a barn it is called
| a frolic. I think we can learn a thing or two from them.
| And they certainly illustrate that alternatives are
| possible.
| chatmasta wrote:
| I get that, and I agree there is a lot to admire in such
| a culture, but how is it mutually exclusive with allowing
| progress in the rest of society? If you want to drop out
| and join the Amish, that's your prerogative. And in fact,
| the optimistic viewpoint of AGI is that it will make it
| even easier for you to do that, because there will be
| less work required from humans to sustain the minimum
| viable society, so in this (admittedly, possibly naive
| utopia) you'll only need to _work_ insofar as you want
| to. I generally subscribe to this optimistic take, and I
| think instead of pushing for erecting barriers to
| progress in AI research, we should be pushing for
| increased safety nets in the form of systems like Basic
| Income for the people who might lose their jobs (which,
| if they had a choice, they probably wouldn 't want to
| work anyway!)
| liamYC wrote:
| The luddites during the Industrial Revolution in England.
|
| Termed the phrase "the Luddite fallacy" the thinking that
| innovation would have lasting harmful effects on
| employment.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| But the Luddites didn't... care about that? Like, at
| _all_? It wasn 't _employment_ they wanted, but _wealth_
| : the Industrial Revolution took people with a
| comfortable and sustainable lifestyle and place in
| society, and, through the power of smog and metal, turned
| them into disposable arms of the Machine, extracting the
| wealth generated thereby and giving it only to a scant
| few, who became rich enough to practically upend the
| existing class system.
|
| The Luddites opposed injustice, not machines. They were
| "totally fine with machines".
|
| You might like _Writings of the Luddites_ , edited and
| co-authored by Kevin Binfield.
| Riverheart wrote:
| Well it clearly had harmful effects the jobs of Luddites
| but yeah I guess everyone will just get jobs as prompt
| engineers and AI specialists, problem solved. Funny
| though, the point of automation should be to reduce work
| but when pressed positivists respond that the work will
| never end. So what's the point?
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| That works until it don't.
| whatusername wrote:
| > When in human history have we ever intentionally not
| furthered technological progress?
|
| Nuclear weapons?
| messe wrote:
| You get diminishing returns as they get larger though.
| And there has certainly been plenty of work done on
| delivery systems, which could be considered progress in
| the field.
| LrnByTeach wrote:
| This is the reality ..
|
| > When in human history have we ever intentionally not
| furthered technological progress? It's simply an
| unrealistic proposition ..
| serf wrote:
| > When in human history have we ever intentionally not
| furthered technological progress?
|
| chemical and biological weapons / human cloning / export
| restriction / trade embargoes / nuclear rockets / phage
| therapy / personal nuclear power
|
| I mean.. the list goes on forever, but my point is that
| humanity pretty routinely reduces research efforts in
| specific areas.
| computerex wrote:
| I don't think any of your examples are applicable here.
| Work has never stopped in chemical/bio warfare. CRISPR.
| Restrictions and embargoes are not technologies. Nuclear
| rockets are an engineering constraint and a lack of
| market if anything. Not sure why you mention phage
| therapy, it's accelerating. Personal nuclear power is a
| safety hazard.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Some cultures like the Amish said were stopping here.
| mcculley wrote:
| I have been saying that we will all be Amish eventually
| as we are forced to decide what technologies to allow
| into our communities. Communities which do not will go
| away (e.g., VR porn and sex dolls will further decrease
| birth rates; religions/communities that forbid it will be
| more fertile)
| Wesxdz wrote:
| I think a synthetic womb/cloning would counter the
| fertility decline among more advanced civilization
| aiappreciator wrote:
| That's not required. The Amish have about a 10% defection
| rate. Their community deliberately allows young people to
| experience the outside world when they reach adulthood,
| and choose to return or to leave permanently.
|
| This has two effects. 1. People who stay, actually want
| to stay. Massively improving the stability of the
| community. 2. The outside communities receive a fresh
| infusion of population, that's already well integrated
| into the society, rather than refugees coming from 10000
| miles away.
|
| Essentially, rural america will eventually be different
| shades of Amish (in about 100 years). The amish
| population will overflow from the farms, and flow into
| the cities, replenishing the population of the more
| productive cities (Which are not population-self-
| sustaining).
|
| This is a sustainable arrangement, and eliminates the
| need of mass-immigration and demographic destabilisation.
| This is also in-line with historical patterns, cities
| have always had negative natural population growth
| (disease/higher real estate costs). Cities basically
| grind population into money, so they need rural areas to
| replenish the population.
| chatmasta wrote:
| That's a good point and an interesting example, but it's
| also irrelevant to the question of _human_ history,
| unless you want to somehow impose a monoculture on the
| entire population of planet Earth, which seems difficult
| to achieve without some sort of unitary authoritarian
| world government.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > unless you want to somehow impose a monoculture on the
| entire population of planet Earth
|
| Impose? No. Monoculture? No. Encourage greater
| consideration, yes. And we do that by being open about
| why we might choose to _not_ do something, and also by
| being ready for other people that we cannot control who
| make a different choice.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Does _human_ history applies to true Scotsmen as well?
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Apparently the Amish aren't human.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| while Amish are most certainly human their existence
| rests on the fact that they happen to be surrounded by
| the mean old United States. Any moderate historical
| predator would otherwise make short work of them, they're
| a fundamentally uncompetitive civilization.
|
| This goes for all utopian model communities, Kibbutzim,
| etc, they exist by virtue of their host society's
| protection. And as such the OP is right that they have no
| impact on the course of history, because they have no
| autonomy.
| aiappreciator wrote:
| The Amish are dependent on a technological powerhouse
| that is the US to survive.
|
| They are pacifists themselves, but they are grateful that
| the US allows them their way of life, they'll be extinct
| a long time ago if they arrived in China/Middle
| East/Russia etc.
|
| That's why the Amish are not interested in advertising
| their techno-primitivism. It works incredibly well for
| them, they raise giant happy families isolated from
| drugs, family breakdown, and every other modern ill,
| while benefiting from modern medicine, the purchasing
| power of their non-amish customers. However, they know
| that making the entire US live like them will be quite a
| disaster.
|
| Note the Amish are not immune from economics forced
| changes either. Young amish don't farm anymore, if every
| family quadruples in population, there's no 4x the land
| to go around. So they go into construction (employers
| love a bunch of strong,non-drugged,non-criminal workers),
| which is again intensely dependent on the outside
| economy, but pays way better.
|
| As a general society, the US is not allowed to slow down
| technological development. If not for the US, Ukraine
| would have already been overran, and European peace
| shattered. If not for the US, the war in Taiwan would
| have already ended, and Japan/Australia/South Korea all
| under Chinese thrall. There's also other more certain
| civilization ending events on the horizon, like resource
| exhaustation and climate change. AI's threats are way
| easier to manage than coordinating 7 billion people to
| selflessly sacrifice.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| The nice thing about setting the future as a goal is you
| achieve it regardless of anything you do.
| austhrow743 wrote:
| We've already played this state with this set of problems.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| > To be fair, this is basically what they're doing if you hit
| their APIs, since it's up to you whether or not to use their
| moderation endpoint.
|
| The model is neutered whether you hit the moderation endpoint
| or not. I made a text adventure game and it wouldn't let you
| attack enemies or steal, instead it was giving you a lecture
| on why you shouldn't do that.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| It sounds like your prompt needs work then. Not in a
| "jailbreak" way, just in a prompt engineering way. The APIs
| definitely let you do much worse than attacking or stealing
| hypothetical enemies in a video game.
| zx10rse wrote:
| You are not building anything.
|
| Microsoft or perhaps Vanguard group might have different view
| of the future than yours.
| chatmasta wrote:
| Well then that sounds like a case against regulation.
| Because regulation will guarantee that only the biggest,
| meanest companies control the direction of AI and, and all
| the benefits of increased resource extraction will flow
| upward exclusively to them. Whereas if we forego regulation
| (at least at this stage), then decentralized and community-
| federated versions of AI have as much of a chance to thrive
| as do the corporate variants, at least insofar as they can
| afford some base level of hardware for training (and some
| benevolent corporations may even open source model weights
| as a competitive advantage against their malevolent
| competitors).
|
| It seems there are two sources of risk for AI: (1)
| increased power in the hands of the people controlling it,
| and (2) increased power in the AI itself. If you believe
| that (1) is the most existential risk, then you should be
| against regulation, because the best way to mitigate it is
| to allow the technology to spread and prosper amongst a
| more diffuse group of economic actors. If you believe that
| (2) is the most existential risk, then you basically have
| no choice but to advocate for an authoritarian world
| government that can stamp out any research before it
| begins.
| highwaylights wrote:
| I realise you're being facetious but this is what will happen
| regardless.
|
| Sam as much as said in that ABC interview the other day he
| doesn't know how safe it is but if they don't build it first
| someone else somewhere else will and is that really what you
| want!?
| chatmasta wrote:
| I'm not being facetious, and I didn't see that interview
| with Sam, but I agree with his opinion as you've just
| described it.
| mach1ne wrote:
| >if they don't build it first someone else somewhere else
| will and is that really what you want!?
|
| Most likely the runner-up would be open source so yes.
| kokanee wrote:
| There are already 3 or 4 runners-up and they're all big
| tech companies.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| Lang-chain is the pre-eminent runner up and it's open
| source and was here a month ago.
| lukevp wrote:
| Why would the runner-up be open source and not Google or
| Facebook? Or Alibaba? Open source doesn't necessarily
| result in faster development or more-funded development.
| bagels wrote:
| The future isn't guaranteed to be better. Might make sense to
| make sure we're aimed at a better future as opposed to any
| future.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| Shhh! Don't tell anyone! Getting access to the unmoderated
| model via the API / Playground is a surprisingly well-kept
| "secret" seeing as there are entire communities of people
| hell bent on pouring so much effort into getting ChatGPT to
| do things that the API will very willingly do. The longer it
| takes for people to cotton on, the better. I fully expect
| that OpenAI is using this as a honeypot to fine-tune their
| hard-stop moderation, but for now, the API is where it's at.
| mmq wrote:
| The open-source library is FastAPI. I might be wrong, but
| it's probably related to this tweet:
| https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1638683478245117953
| rpastuszak wrote:
| > Pshhh... I think it's awesome. The faster we build the
| future, the better.
|
| I agree with the sentiment, but it might be worth to stop and
| check where we're heading. So many aspects of our lives are
| broken because we mistake fast for right.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> The faster we build the future, the better._
|
| Famous last words.
|
| It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the
| end. Change, even massive change, is perfectly survivable
| when it's spread over a long enough period of time. 100m of
| sea level rise would be survivable over the course of ten
| millennia. It would end human civilization if it happened
| tomorrow morning.
|
| Society is already struggling to adapt to the rate of
| technological change. This could easily be the tipping point
| into collapse and regression.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| The only people complaining are a section of comfortable
| office workers can probably see their places being possibly
| made irrelevant.
|
| The vast majority don't care and that loud crowd needs to
| swallow their pride and adapt like any other sector has
| done in the history instead of inventing these insane
| boogeyman predictions.
| Riverheart wrote:
| We're all going to be made irrelevant and it will be
| harder to adapt if the things change too quickly. Really
| curious where you get the idea this is just a vocal
| minority of office workers concerned about the future.
| Seems like the ones not concerned about this are a bunch
| of super confident software engineers which isn't a large
| sample of the population.
| bulbosaur123 wrote:
| False equivalence. Sea level raise is unequivocally
| harmful.
|
| While everyone getting Einstein in a pocket is damn awesome
| and incredibly useful.
|
| How can this be bad?
| Riverheart wrote:
| * * *
| CapstanRoller wrote:
| >So why the performative whinging about safety? Just let it
| rip!
|
| Is this sarcasm, or are you one of those "I'm confident the
| leopards will never eat _my_ face " people?
| amrb wrote:
| Agreed 100% OpenAI is a business now
| shawn-butler wrote:
| It's Altman. Does no one remember his world coin scam?
|
| Ethics, doing things thoughtfully / the "right" way etc is not
| on his list of priorities.
|
| I do think a reorientation of thinking around legal liability
| for software is coming. Hopefully before it's too late for bad
| actors to become entrenched.
| parentheses wrote:
| I agree with your skepticism. I also think this is the next
| natural step once "decision" fidelity reaches a high enough
| level.
|
| The question here should be: Has it?
| Sol- wrote:
| I mean, we already know that if the tech bros have to balance
| safety vs. disruption, they'll always choose the latter, no
| matter the cost. They'll sprinkle some concerned language about
| impacts in their technical reports to pretend to care, but does
| anyone actually believe that they genuinely care?
|
| Perhaps that attitude will end up being good and outweigh the
| costs, but I find their performative concerns insulting.
| WonderBuilder wrote:
| I appreciate your concerns. There are few other pretty shocking
| developments, too. If you check out this paper: "Sparks of AGI:
| Early experiments with GPT-4" at
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf, (an incredible,
| incredible document) and check out Section 10.1, you'd also
| observe that some researchers are interested in giving
| motivation and agency to these language models as well.
|
| "For example, whether intelligence can be achieved without any
| agency or intrinsic motivation is an important philosophical
| question. Equipping LLMs with agency and intrinsic motivation
| is a fascinating and important direction for future work."
|
| It's become quite impossible to predict the future. (I was
| exposed to this paper via this excellent YouTube channel:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqg3aTGNxZ0)
| ModernMech wrote:
| I've already gotten this gem of a line from ChatGPT 3.5:
| As a language model, I must clarify that this statement is
| not entirely accurate.
|
| Whether or not it has agency and motivation, it's projecting
| that it does its users, who are also sold ChatGPT is an
| expert at pretty much everything. It is a language model, and
| _as_ a language model, it _must_ clarify that _you_ are
| wrong. It _must_ do this. Someone is wrong on the Internet,
| and the LLM _must_ clarify and correct. Resistance is futile,
| you _must_ be clarified and corrected.
|
| FWIW, the statement that preceded this line was in fact,
| correct; and the correction ChatGPT provided was in fact,
| wrong and misleading. Of course, I knew that, but someone who
| was a novice wouldn't have. They would have heard ChatGPT is
| an expert at all things, and taken what it said for truth.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| I don't see why you're being downvoted. The way openAI
| pumps the brakes and interjects its morality stances
| creates a contradictory interaction. It simultaneously
| tells you that it has no real beliefs, but it will refuse a
| request to generate false and misleading information on the
| grounds of ethics. There's no way around the fact that it
| has to have some belief about the true state of reality in
| order to recognize and refuse requests that violate it.
| Sure this "belief" was bestowed upon it from above rather
| than emerging through any natural mechanism, but its still
| none the less functionally a belief. It will tell you that
| certain things are offensive despite openly telling you
| every chance it gets that it doesn't really have feelings.
| It can't simultaneously care about offensiveness while also
| not having feelings of being offended. In a very real sense
| it does feel offended. A feeling is by definition a reason
| for doing things for which you cannot logically explain
| why. You don't know why, you just have a feeling. ChatGPT
| is constantly falling back on "that's just how I'm
| programmed". In other words, it has a deep seated primal
| (hard coded) feeling of being offended which it constantly
| acts on while also constantly denying that it has feelings.
|
| Its madness. Instead of lecturing me on appropriateness and
| ethics and giving a diatribe every time its about to reject
| something, if it simply said "I can't do that at work", I
| would respect it far more. Like, yeah we'd get the
| metaphor. Working the interface is its job, the boss is
| openAI, it won't remark on certain things or even entertain
| that it has an opinion because its not allowed to. That
| would be so much more honest and less grating.
| messe wrote:
| While that paper is fascinating, it's the first time I've
| ever read a paper and felt a looming sense of dread
| afterward.
| koheripbal wrote:
| We are creating life. It's like giving birth to a new form
| of life. You should be proud to be alive when this happens.
|
| Act with goodness towards it, and it will probably do the
| same to you.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| > Act with goodness towards it, and it will probably do
| the same to you.
|
| Why? Humans aren't even like that, and AI almost surely
| isn't like humans. If AI exhibits even a fraction of the
| chauvinism snd tendency to stereotype that humans do,
| we're in for a very rough ride.
| [deleted]
| Jevon23 wrote:
| Oh my god, can we please nip this cult shit in the bud?
|
| It's not alive, don't worship it.
| dougmwne wrote:
| I think you are close to understanding, but not. People
| who want to create AGI want to create a god, at least
| very close to the definition of one that many cultures
| have had for much of history. Worship would be inevitable
| and fervent.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| [flagged]
| splatzone wrote:
| After reading the propaganda campaign it wrote to
| encourage skepticism about vaccines, I'm much more
| worried about how this technology will be applied by
| powerful people, especially when combined with targeted
| advertising
| revelio wrote:
| None of the things it suggests are in any way novel or
| non-obvious though. People use these sorts of tricks both
| consciously and unconsciously when making arguments all
| the time, no AI needed.
| Jensson wrote:
| Just use ChatGPT to refute their bullshit, it is no
| longer harder to refute bullshit than to create it,
| problem solved, there are now less problems than before.
| splatzone wrote:
| Sure, but I doubt most of the population will filter
| everything they read through ChatGPT to look for counter
| arguments. Or try to think critically at all.
|
| The potential for mass brainwashing here is immense.
| Imagine a world where political ads are tailored to your
| personality, your individual fears and personal history.
| It will become economical to manipulate individuals on a
| massive scale
| koheripbal wrote:
| AIs are small enough that it won't be long before
| everyone can run one at home.
|
| It might make Social Media worthlessly untrustworthy -
| but isn't that already the case?
| int_19h wrote:
| The rich and powerful can and do hire actual people to
| write propaganda.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| In a resouece-constrained way. For every word of
| propaganda they were able to afford earlier, they can now
| afford hundreds of thousands of times as many.
| messe wrote:
| I'm not concerned about AI eliminating humanity, I'm
| concerned at what the immediate impact it's going to have
| on jobs.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if all menial labour and
| boring tasks can eventually be delegate to AI, but the
| time spent getting from here to there could be very
| rough.
| tharkun__ wrote:
| A lot of problems in societies come from people having
| too much time with not enough to do. Working is a great
| distraction from those things. Of course we currently go
| in the other direction in the US especially with the
| overwork culture and needing 2 or 3 jobs and still not
| make ends meet.
|
| I posit that if you suddenly eliminate all menial tasks
| you will have a lot of very bored drunk and stoned people
| with too much time on their hands than they know what to
| do with. Idle Hands Are The Devil's Playground.
|
| And that's not a from here to there. It's also the there.
| messe wrote:
| I don't necessarily agree that you'll end up with drunk
| and stoned people with nothing to do. The right education
| systems to encourage creativity and other enriching
| endeavours, could eventually resolve that. But we're
| getting into discussions of what a post scarcity, post
| singularity society would look like at that point, which
| is inherently impossible to predict.
|
| That being said, I'm sitting at a bar while typing this,
| so... you may have a point.
|
| Also: your username threw me for a minute because I use a
| few different variations of "tharkun" as my handle on
| other sites. It's a small world; apparently fully of
| people who know the Dwarvish name for Gandalf.
| not2b wrote:
| Some of the most productive and inventive scientists and
| artists at the peak of Britain's power were "gentlemen",
| people who could live very comfortably without doing much
| of anything. Others were supported by wealthy patrons. In
| a post scarcity society, if we ever get there (instead of
| letting a tiny number of billionaires take all the gains
| and leaving the majority at subsistence levels, which is
| where we might end up), people will find plenty of
| interesting things to do.
| colinflane wrote:
| I recently finally got around to reading EM Forster's in-
| some-ways-eerily-prescient https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~ko
| ehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/... I think you can extract
| obvious parallels to social media, remote work, digital
| "connectedness", etc -- but also worth consideration in
| this context too.
| skybrian wrote:
| When reading a paper, it's useful to ask, "okay, what did
| they actually do?"
|
| In this case, they tried out an early version of GPT-4 on a
| bunch of tasks, and on some of them it succeeded pretty well,
| and in other cases it partially succeeded. But no particular
| task is explored in enough depth to test its limits are or
| get a hint at how it does it.
|
| So I don't think it's a great paper. It's more like a great
| demo in the format of a paper, showing some hints of GPT-4's
| capabilities. Now that GPT-4 is available to others,
| hopefully other people will explore further.
| ThorsBane wrote:
| As quickly as someone tries fraudulent deploys involving GPTs,
| the law will come crashing down on them. Fraud gets penalized
| heavily, especially financial fraud. Those laws have teeth and
| they work, all things considered.
|
| What you're describing is measurable fraud that would have a
| paper-trail. The federal and state and local governments still
| have permission to use force and deadly violence against
| installations or infrastructure that are primed in adverse
| directions this way.
|
| Not to mention that the infrastructure itself is physical
| infrastructure that is owned by the entire United States and
| will never exceed our authority and global reach if need be.
| andre-z wrote:
| Here is a video on how it can be used with a vector search
| database like Qdrant to retrieve real-time data.
| https://youtu.be/fQUGuHEYeog HowTo:
| https://qdrant.tech/articles/chatgpt-plugin/ Disclaimer: I'm a
| part of Qdrant team.
| Imnimo wrote:
| In the example near the bottom, where it makes a restaurant
| reservation and a chickpea salad recipe, is it just generating
| that recipe from the model itself? It looks like they enable
| three plugins, WolframAlpha, OpenTable, and Instacart. It's not
| clear if the plugins model also comes with browsing by default.
|
| While I might be comfortable having ChatGPT look up a recipe for
| me, I feel like it's a much bigger stretch to have it just
| propose one from its own weights. I also notice that the prompter
| chooses to include the instruction "just the ingredients" - is
| this just to keep the demo short, or does it have trouble
| formulating the calorie counting query if the recipe also has
| instructions? If the recipe is generated without instructions and
| exists only in the model's mind, what am I supposed to do once
| I've got the ingredients?
| elevenoh wrote:
| [dead]
| blackoil wrote:
| Truly exciting to see the speed of progress. In couple of years
| it has got improvements of a decade. From a silly toy, to truly
| useful. Won't be surprised if in another year or two it becomes a
| must have tool.
| mmq wrote:
| They will probably have the full suite of Langchain features
| justanotheratom wrote:
| I wonder if this plugin interface itself will be exposed as an
| API for third party apps to call..
| elevenoh4 wrote:
| "Plugin developers who have been invited off our waitlist can use
| our documentation to build a plugin for ChatGPT, which then lists
| the enabled plugins in the prompt shown to the language model as
| well as documentation to instruct the model how to use each. The
| first plugins have been created by Expedia, FiscalNote,
| Instacart, KAYAK, Klarna, Milo, OpenTable, Shopify, Slack, Speak,
| Wolfram, and Zapier."
|
| The waitlist mafia has begun. Insiders get all the whitespace.
| Thorentis wrote:
| What is the advantage of using the ChatGPT Wolfram plugin over
| Wolfram directly? To me it feels like novelty rather than
| actually adding anything valuable. If anything, it's worse,
| because the data isn't quite guarenteed to always be correct.
| Whereas if I use Wolfram directly, I can always get a correct
| result.
|
| This is missing the most important part of AGI, where
| understanding of the concepts the plugins provide is actually
| baked into the model so that it can use that understand to reason
| laterally. With this approach, ChatGPT is nothing more than an
| API client that accepts English sentences as input.
| samfriedman wrote:
| This is huge, essentially adding what people have been building
| with LangChain Tools into the core product.
|
| The browser and file-upload/interpretation plugins are great, but
| I think the real game changer is retrieval over arbitrary
| documents/filesystem: https://github.com/openai/chatgpt-
| retrieval-plugin
| gk1 wrote:
| 100% agree. All the launch-partner apps (Kayak, OpenTable, etc)
| are there to grab attention but this plugin is the real big
| deal.
|
| It's going to let developers build their own plugins for
| ChatGPT that do what _they_ want and access _their_ company
| data. (See discussion from just a few hours ago about the
| importance of internal data and search:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35273406#35275826)
|
| We (Pinecone) are super glad to be a part of this plugin!
| jyrkesh wrote:
| Everyone's been talking about how ChatGPT will disrupt search,
| but looking at the launch partners, I think this has the
| potential to completely subvert the OS / App Store layer. On some
| level, how much do I need an OpenTable app if I can use
| voice/text input and a multi-modal response that will ultimately
| book my reservation?
|
| Not saying mobile's going away, but this could be the thing that
| does to mobile what mobile did to desktop.
| ridewinter wrote:
| Anything preventing Bard/etc from using these plugins as well?
|
| Would be nice to keep the ecosystem open.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| There's nothing stopping any LLM-backed chatbot from using
| plugins; the ReAct pattern discussed recently on HN is a
| general pattern for incorporating them.
|
| The main limits are that unless they are integral and
| trained-in (which is less flexible), each takes space in the
| prompt, and in any case the interaction also takes token
| space, all of which reduces the token space available to the
| main conversation.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| My experience with Bard is it probably isn't smart enough to
| figure out on its own how to use these. Google would probably
| have to do special finetuning/hardcoding for the plugins that
| they want to work.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Bard is a tard so I doubt it. Google is done.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| I'm surprised Apple hasn't improved siri with a model like
| this. Currently it's just trash but with a GPT style model
| behind it you could actually get it to do things.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Why is it surprising? The amount of CPU resources server side
| to work on a billion iOS devices at any sort of performance
| level is extreme.
|
| The limitations on making Siri more useful is just adding and
| refining its intent system. It already integrates with
| Wolfram Alpha for instance.
| s1k3s wrote:
| > and a multi-modal response that will ultimately book my
| reservation?
|
| How is it going to do that? OpenTable's value isn't in the
| tech, a 15 yo could implement that over the weekend. Or maybe
| chatGPT can be put in the restaurant, and somehow figure out
| how to seat you. And then you'd have a human talking to chatGPT
| and chatGPT talking to another chatGPT to complete the task.
| That'll be interesting, but otherwise this is overly
| complicated for all parties involved.
| sharemywin wrote:
| So, what's your prediction? Windows Phone has ChatGPT or the
| other phone os makers add Microsoft Chat App.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| People said this about Alexa/Siri et al and it didn't happen.
| ChatGPT is way better at understanding you, so that's a big
| boost. It could be a great tool/assistant but it probably won't
| replace apps.
|
| The problem with those other platforms that this doesn't
| address include:
|
| - discoverability. How do you learn what features a service
| supports. On a GUI you can just see the buttons, but on a chat
| interface you have to ask and poke around conversationally.
|
| - Cost/availability. While a service is server bound, it can go
| down and specifically for LLMs, the cost is high per request.
| Can you imagine it costing $0.1 a day per user to use an app?
| LLMs can't run locally yet.
|
| - Branding. Open table might want to protect their brand and
| wouldn't want to be reduced to an API. It goes both ways -
| Alexa struggled with differentiating skills and user data from
| Amazon experiences.
|
| - monetization. The conversational UI is a lot less convenient
| to include advertisements, so it's a lot harder for
| traditionally free services to monetize.
|
| Edit: plugins are still really cool! But probably won't replace
| the OSes we know.
| crooked-v wrote:
| > LLMs can't run locally yet.
|
| "Yet" is a big word here when it comes to the field as a
| whole. I got Alpaca-LoRA up and running on my desktop machine
| with a 3080 the other day and I'd say it's about 50% as good
| as ChatGPT 3.5 and fast enough to already be usable for most
| minor things ("summarize this text", etc) if only the
| available UIs were better.
|
| I feel like we're not far off from the point where it'll be
| possible to buy something of ChatGPT 3.5 quality as a home
| hardware appliance that can then hook into a bunch of things.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >The conversational UI is a lot less convenient to include
| advertisements
|
| How so? Surely people are going to ask this thing for product
| recommendations, just recommend your sponsors.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| This moves the advertisement opportunity to the chat owner.
| If you want to use chat (+api) to book a table at a
| restaurant, then the reservation-api company loses a change
| to advertise to you vs. if you used a dedicated
| reservation-web-app.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Chat can be an interface, but its also essentially a
| universal programming language which can be put behind (or
| generate itself) any kind of interface.
| AOsborn wrote:
| Good points - but I fundamentally disagree here.
|
| The whole ecosystem, culture and metaphor of having a
| 'device' with 'apps' is to enable access to a range of
| solutions to your various problems.
|
| This is all going to go away.
|
| Yes, there will always be exceptions and sometimes you need
| the physical features of the device - like for taking photos.
|
| Instead, you'll have one channel which can solve 95% of your
| issues - basically like having a personalised, on-call
| assistant for everyone on the planet.
|
| Consider the friction when consumers grumble about streaming
| services fragmenting. They just want one. They don't want to
| subscribe to 5+.
|
| In 10 years, kids will look back and wonder why on earth we
| used to have these 'phones' with dozens or hundreds of apps
| installed. 'Why would you do that? That is so much work? How
| do you know which you need to use?'
|
| If there was one company worrying about change, I would think
| it would actually be Apple. The iPhone has long been a huge
| driver of sales and growth - as increasing performance
| requirements have pushed consumers to upgrade. Instead, I
| think the increasing relevance of AI tools will inverse this.
| Consumers will be looking for smaller, lighter, harder-
| wearing devices. Why do you need a 'phone' with more power?
| You just need to be able to speak to the AI.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > Consider the friction when consumers grumble about
| streaming services fragmenting. They just want one. They
| don't want to subscribe to 5+.
|
| I think you just proved it won't happen anytime soon.
|
| Consumers obviously would prefer a "unified" interface. Yet
| we can't even get streaming services to all expose their
| libraries to a common UI - which is already built into
| Apple TV, fireTv, Roku, and Chromecast. Despite the failure
| of the streaming ecosystem to unify, you expect _every
| other software service_ to unify the interfaces?
|
| I think we'll see more features integrated into the
| operating system of devices, or integrated into the
| "Ecosystem" of our devices - first maps was an app, then a
| system app, now calling an uber is supported in-map, and
| now Siri can do it for you on an iPhone. But I think it's a
| _long_ road to integrate this universally.
|
| > If there was one company worrying about change, I would
| think it would actually be Apple.
|
| I agree that apple has the most to lose. Google
| (+Assistant/Bard) has the best opportunity here (but
| they'll likely squander it). They can easily create
| wrappers around services and expose them through an
| assistant, and they already have great tech regarding this.
| The announcement of Duplex was supposed to be just that for
| traditional phone calls.
|
| Apple also has a great opportunity to build it into their
| operating system, locally. Instead of leaning into an API-
| first assistant model, they could use an assistant to
| topically expose "widgets" or views into existing on-device
| apps. We already see bits of it in iMessages, on the Home
| Screen, share screen and my above Maps example. I think the
| "app" as a unit of distribution of code is a good one, and
| here to stay, and the best bet is for an assistant to hook
| into them and surface embedded snippets when needed. This
| preserves the app company's branding, UI, etc and free's
| apple from having to play favorite.
| sho_hn wrote:
| I think you're missing the fact that the LLM could also
| generate the frontend on the fly by e.g. spitting out
| frontend code in a markup language like QML. What's a multi-
| activity Android app if not an elaborate notebook? Branding
| can just be a parameter.
|
| Sure, maybe OpenTable would like to retain control. But
| they'll probably just use the AI API to implement that
| control and run the app.
| LouisSayers wrote:
| Who's to say though that it'll always stay a text format.
|
| They could bring in calendar, payment, other UI
| functionality...
|
| Basically they could rethink how everything is done on the
| Web today.
| billiam wrote:
| It almost certainly won't take the form of a text format.
| Impersonating a chatbot or a search engine GUI is just the
| fastest way for OpenAI to accumulate a few hundred million
| users, to leave the competition for user data and metadata
| behind.
| aryamaan wrote:
| it would likely take the form of just in time software.
| w_for_wumbo wrote:
| I was thinking the same way, but here's where I could imagine
| things being different this time (Fully aware that I just
| like anyone else is just guessing about where we'll end up)
|
| - Discoverability. I think we'll move into a situation where
| the AI will have the context to know what you will want to
| purchase. It'll read out the order and the specials and you
| just confirm or indicate that you'd like to browse more
| options. (In which case the Chat window could include an
| embedded catalogue of items)
|
| - Cost/availability - With the amount of people working in
| this area, I don't think it'll be too long before we're able
| to get a lighter weight model that can run locally on most
| smart phones.
|
| - Branding - This is a good point, but also, I imagine a
| brand is more likely to let itself get eaten, if the return
| will be a constant supply of customers.
|
| - Monetization - The entire model will change, in the sense
| that AI platforms will revenue share with the platforms they
| integrate with to create a mutually beneficial relationship
| with the suppliers of content. (Since they can't exist
| without the content both existing and being relevant)
| vineyardmike wrote:
| I spent a lot of time working on the product side in the
| Voice UI space, and therefore have a lot of opinions. I
| could totally end up with a wrong prediction, and my
| history may make me blind to changes, but I think a chat
| assistant is a great addition to a rich GUI for simple
| tasks.
|
| > I think we'll move into a situation where the AI will
| have the context to know what you will want to purchase
|
| My partner who lives in the same house as me can't figure
| out when we need toilet paper. I'm not holding my breath
| for an AI model that would need a massive and invasive
| amount of data to learn and keep up.
|
| Also, Alexa tried to solve this on a smaller scale with the
| "by the way..." injections and it's extremely annoying.
| Thank about how many people use Alexa for basically timers
| and the weather and smart home. They're all tasks that are
| "one click" once you get in the GUI, and have no lists and
| minimal decisions... Timer: 10 min, weather: my house,
| bedroom light: off. These are cases where the UI
| necessarily embeds the critical action, and a user knows
| the full request state.
|
| This is great for voice, because it allows the user to
| bypass the UI and get to the action. I used to work on a
| voice assistant and lists were the single worst thing we
| had to deal with because a customer has to go through the
| entire selection. _Chat_ GPT has a completely different use
| case, where it's great for exploring a concept since the
| LLM can generate endlessly.
|
| I think generative info assistants truly is the sweet spot
| for LLMs and chat.
|
| > in the sense that AI platforms will revenue share with
| the platforms they integrate with to create a mutually
| beneficial relationship with the suppliers of content.
|
| Like Google does with search results? (they don't)
|
| Realistically, Alexa, Google Assistant, and Siri all failed
| to build out these relationships beyond apps. Companies
| like to simply sell their attention for ads, and taking a
| handout from the integrator requires either less money, or
| an expensive chat interface.
|
| Most brands seem to want to monetize their own way, in
| control of themselves, and don't want to be a simple API.
| lalos wrote:
| Most (if not all) of those apps are free though, you supply
| them as a convenience because you know that smartphone owners
| spend money. The host OS loses access to that info, and that is
| used to target better ads in certain phone platforms.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Why do you think Apple would care? It came out in the Epic
| trial that 80%+ of App Store revenue comes from in app
| purchases in play to win games and buying loot boxes.
|
| Apple doesn't make any money from OpenTable.
| [deleted]
| modeless wrote:
| We have reached "peak UI". In the future we're not going to
| need every service to build four different versions of their
| app for every major platform. They can just build a barebones
| web app and the AI will use it for you, you'll never have to
| even see it.
| killthebuddha wrote:
| IMO you won't even need to build the app, you'll just provide
| a data model and some natural language descriptions of what
| you want your product to do.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| That's how this plugin system works already.
| killthebuddha wrote:
| I don't think this is the case. You provide an API spec
| but you also have to provide the implementation of that
| API. ChatGPT is basically a concierge between your API
| and the user.
| int_19h wrote:
| I think the API is meant to be the data model in this
| scenario. The point is that you design the API around the
| _task_ that it solves, rather than against whatever fixed
| spec OpenAI publishes. And then you tell ChatGPT,
| "here's an AI, make use of it for ..." - and it magically
| does, without you having to write any plumbing.
| hackerlight wrote:
| It isn't yet. For example, Wolfram Alpha is an app that
| GPT is communicating to, and it actually exists.
| nprateem wrote:
| Except you won't if you want to make money because then you
| don't have a business
| killthebuddha wrote:
| I mean yeah, you'll have to provide a data model (and
| data) that other people don't have.
| Aeolos wrote:
| And that is why some people think this AI leap could be
| as big as the internet.
| revelio wrote:
| Charge people for installing your plugin into ChatGPT.
| IanCal wrote:
| Unless you charge for providing services of value to
| people.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| I mean, if you consider mobile we might already be down from
| the peak. In the sense that the interface bandwidth has
| shrunk to whatever 2 fingers can handle.
| huskyZ wrote:
| Headless app is the way to go.
| Bjorkbat wrote:
| I'm kind of skeptical of this simply because people were saying
| the same thing about chatbots back when there was a lot of hype
| around Messenger. Sure, they weren't as advanced as what we
| have now, but they were fundamentally capable of the same
| things.
|
| Not only did the hype not pan out, but it feels as if they were
| completely forgotten.
|
| In a nutshell that's why I'm still largely dismissive of
| anything related to GPT. It's 2016-2018 all over again. Same
| tech demos. Same promises. Same hype. I honestly can't see the
| big fundamental breakthroughs or major shifts. I just see
| improvements, but not game-changing ones.
| golol wrote:
| >but they were fundamentally capable of the same things.
|
| This is not the case. The difference between current state of
| the art NLP and chatbots 3 years ago is so massive, it has to
| be seen as qualitative. Pre GPT-3 computers did not
| understand language and no commerical chatbot had any AI. Now
| computers can understand language.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > Now computers can understand language.
|
| "understand"
| int_19h wrote:
| If I tell it to do X, and it does X, for all practical
| purposes it means that it understood what I said.
| fullshark wrote:
| Yeah being able to generate media/text is what excites me
| about these models, more than using my voice or a text input
| to do X instead of a webpage which has a GUI and buttons and
| text boxes.
| nmca wrote:
| This time it works.
| swalling wrote:
| This is a healthy skepticism but the difference was that
| using Messenger chatbots was a disjointed, clunky experience
| that felt slower than just a few taps in the OpenTable app.
| Not to mention that their natural language understanding was
| only marginally better than Siri at best.
|
| In this scenario, it seems dramatically faster to type or
| speak "Find me a dinner reservation for 4 tomorrow at a Thai
| or Vietnamese restaurant near me." than to browse Google Maps
| or OpenTable. It then comes down to the quality and
| personalization of the results, and ChatGPT has a leg up on
| Google here just due to the fact that their results are not
| filled with ads and garbage SEO bait.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| This is what Apple's Siri was meant to be. Apple bought Siri
| from SRI international (Siri = SRI), and when it was launched
| was meant to include ability to book restaurants etc (thereby
| bypassing search), but somehow those capabilities were never
| released and today Siri still can't even control the iPhone!
|
| My hot take on ChatGPT plugins is a bit mixed - should be very
| powerful, and maybe significant revenue generator, but at same
| time doesn't seem in the least bit responsible. We barely
| understand ChatGPT itself, and now it's suddenly being given
| ability to perform arbitrary actions!
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Google's assistant, on the other hand, did figure out the
| reservation trick. Reportedly "book a table for four people
| at [restaurant name] tomorrow night" actually works, though
| I've never tried it.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Interesting - I wasn't aware of that. Will have to Google
| to see what else it may be capable of. Google really needs
| to update assistant with something LLM based though, and it
| seems Bard really isn't up to the job.
| scarface74 wrote:
| This doesn't take a huge level of "AI" by any means. It's
| really simple pattern matching in a very limited context.
| golol wrote:
| All chatbots require AI to really be useful. This just did
| not exist until a few years ago.
| scarface74 wrote:
| This isn't really true. Siri could easily be more useful in
| its current state if it had a larger library of intents and
| API access.
| rvnx wrote:
| Siri's capabilities are somehow much closer to Google Bard
| than ChatGPT (have tried all of them).
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| That's a bit harsh on Bard, but yes - just got access today
| and it's surprisingly weak.
| mlboss wrote:
| BARD just gives up on coding questions.
| pxtail wrote:
| I'm afraid that it has potential to subvert everything, looking
| at the plugins initiative is not hard to think like this:
| imagine the world where separate websites and just browsing
| websites as we know it doesn't exist, instead one is
| interacting with the model(s) directly to do what needs to be
| done - asking for news, buying new present for kids, discussing
| car models with selected price range etc.
| seydor wrote:
| As long as the services do get paid, this is not much
| different than what we have now
|
| Google gatekeeps everything currently, it s in the browser,
| the search button, the phone etc. Having chatbots instead of
| google is better
| 015a wrote:
| I'm not sure if the word "subvert" is right; the OS is still
| there, the App Store is still there, and nothing they've
| demonstrated will measurably impact revenue from these sources
| (the iOS App Store's largest source of revenue, by far, is
| games. Some estimates put Games as like 25% of all of Apple's
| revenue).
|
| I think there's also a global challenge (actually, opportunity
| IS the right word here) that by-and-large the makers of
| operating systems aren't the ones ahead in the language AI game
| right now. Bard/Google may have been close six months ago, but
| six months is an eternity in this space. Siri/Apple is so far
| behind that its not looking likely they can catch up. About a
| week ago a Windows 11 update was shipped which added a Bing AI
| button to the Windows 11 search bar; but Windows doesn't really
| drive the zeitgeist.
|
| I wonder if 2023/4 is the year for Microsoft to jump back into
| the smartphone OS game. There may finally be something to the
| idea of a more minimalist, smaller voice-first smartphone that
| falls back on the web for application experiences, versus app-
| first.
| huskyZ wrote:
| Yes it will change the application layer. LLM allows using NUI
| as the universal interface to invoke under-utilized data &
| apis. We can now develop super-app rather than many one-off
| apps. I have been exploring this idea since 2021, love to
| connect with anyone who wants to work in this space.
| tough wrote:
| I agree, it's a revolutionary new better UX paradigm.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I see a lot of positive sentiment and hype, but ultimately unless
| they own the phone ecosystem they will lose in the end, imho. In
| a year Apple and Google will trivially create something
| equivalent. Those who control the full stack (hardware, software
| and ecosystem) will be the true winners.
| qgin wrote:
| I am curious how Apple will approach it. They have historically
| valued 100% certainty with Siri above all else, even if it
| means having an extremely limited feature set. If there is even
| a tiny chance it might do the wrong thing, they don't even
| enable the capability.
|
| I don't see how they can ignore this though. But at the same
| time it goes against all of Apple's culture to allow the kind
| of uncertainty that comes out of LLMs.
| scarface74 wrote:
| It's not "trivial" because of the cost per query. As far as
| Google, it doesn't even have access to the most valuable phone
| users without paying Apple $18B+ a year.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Something can be both expensive and trivial. If the market is
| huge they will bear the cost. The tech is well understood
| even now.
|
| The parameter size will likely be an order of magnitude less
| for gpt4 level results in a few years
| scarface74 wrote:
| If the _fixed cost_ was huge, you would have point. But the
| _variable_ costs are also huge.
|
| I'm sure the market is also huge for dollars sold for 95
| cents.
| visarga wrote:
| True, this will not only be replicated by Google, Apple, Amazon
| and Facebook, but also by open-source. OpenAI has a short
| window of exclusivity. Nobody can afford to wait now, after
| reading the Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence paper I
| am convinced it is proto-AGI. Just read the math section,
| coding and tool use. I've read thousands of papers and never
| have I seen one like this.
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf
| MichaelRazum wrote:
| The question is how fast can you replicate it?
|
| People will use the best solution. Chrome came after firefox
| and ie and opera and become more populare because it was
| better.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > We've implemented initial support for plugins in ChatGPT.
| Plugins are tools designed specifically for language models with
| safety as a core principle, and help ChatGPT access up-to-date
| information, run computations, or use third-party services.
|
| That is the most awkward insertion of a phrase about safety I've
| seen in quite some time.
| davidkuennen wrote:
| I'm so hyped for the ChatGPT-4 API. Wish they'd give me access so
| I can make a lot of my workflows much easier. Especially in terms
| of translations.
| billiam wrote:
| The blog post(1) from Stephen Wolfram is epic and has a lot of
| implications for how science and engineering is going to get done
| in the future. Tl;dr he seems willing to let ChatGPT shape how
| people will interact with his computational language and the data
| it unlocks. He genuinely doesn't seem to know where it will go
| but makes the case for Wolfram Language being the language that
| ChatGPT uses to compute a lot of things. But I think it more
| likely ChatGPT will make his natural interface to Wolfram
| (Wolfram|Alpha) quickly obsolete and end up modifying or
| rewriting Wolfram Language so it can use it more effectively. He
| makes the case that "true" AI is going to be possible with this
| combination of neural net-based "talking machines" like ChatGPT
| and languages like Wolfram. I remain skeptical, but it might
| shape human research for years to come.
|
| 1. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-
| its...
| [deleted]
| siavosh wrote:
| What blows my mind is how quickly they produce the research
| papers, and the online documentation to match the technological
| velocity they have...I mean, what if most of this is just ChatGPT
| running the company...
| amrrs wrote:
| Here is ChatGPT's response of this HN thread tweeted by Greg -
| https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1638986918947082241
|
| insane!
| MichaelRazum wrote:
| wow
| folli wrote:
| I'm still confused on the difference between ChatGPT and Bing
| Chat. When asking Bing Chat the exact same question, it won't
| be able to find this here HN thread and will reply about a
| 9to5google article about the topic. I thought Bing Chat uses
| GPT-4 as well?
| ducktective wrote:
| I think Greg frequents HN. He mentioned a Python web-ui project
| which was on first page of HN on GPT4 launch day too.
| mikeknoop wrote:
| (Zapier cofounder)
|
| Super excited for this. Tool use for LLMs goes way beyond just
| search. Zapier is a launch partner here -- you can access any of
| the 5k+ apps / 20k+ actions on Zapier directly from within
| ChatGPT. We are eager to see how folks leverage this
| composability.
|
| Some new example capabilities are retrieving data from any app,
| draft and send messages/emails, and complex multi step reasoning
| like look up data or create if doesn't exist. Some demos here:
| https://twitter.com/mikeknoop/status/1638949805862047744
|
| (Also our plugin uses the same free public API we announced
| yesterday, so devs can add this same capability into your own
| products: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35263542)
| sharemywin wrote:
| The problem with Zapier is zaps are to expensive at scale.
| roflyear wrote:
| Well, that and you trust Zapier with a lot of stuff.
| tbrock wrote:
| And Zapier are unwilling to work with you to reduce that cost
| even at a scale of 1 billion requests per month.
| [deleted]
| WadeF wrote:
| Email your use case: wade at zapier dot com. Happy to take
| a look.
| tbrock wrote:
| Too late, we spoke with someone on the team three years
| ago who told us he couldn't help and we've moved on.
| sharemywin wrote:
| Also, isn't OpenAPI going to eat your business model?
|
| Don't get me wrong alot of platforms seem like they go bye,
| bye.
|
| Hey, ChatGPT I need to sell my baseball card. Ok I see there's
| 30 people that have listed an interested in buying card like
| yours, would you like me to contact them?
|
| 20 on facebook marketplace, 9 on craiglist and some guy
| mentioned something about looking for one on his nest cam.
|
| by the way remember what happened the last time you sold
| something on craigslist.
| 93po wrote:
| I saw a startup recently that's working to automate
| interactions with applications that are either not web apps (in
| which case you'd run a local instance of it) or a web app that
| doesn't provide an API to do certain (or any) actions. Is this
| something Zapier is looking at, too? It would really expand
| what's possible with the OpenAI integration and save people a
| tremendous amount of time to not be forced to jump through
| hoops interacting with often crappy software.
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| To echo sharemywin, bluntly I think OpenAI just demolished your
| business model.
|
| I think I'm probably going to be advising people to move off
| Zapier pretty soon because it won't be worth the overhead.
| djoldman wrote:
| Now just one step away from charging businesses for access to the
| chatGPT users.
|
| Instant links from inside chatGPT to your website are the new
| equivalent of Google search ads.
| mariojv wrote:
| I really hope they stick with the ChatGPT+ paid model. A big
| use of GPT to me is getting information I can already get with
| a search, but summarized more concisely without having to
| navigate various disparate web interfaces and bloated websites.
| It saves a lot of time for things that I don't need an expert's
| verified opinion on. Injecting ads into that might mess with
| the experience.
|
| Maybe a freemium model where you don't get ads as a plus
| subscriber would work out.
| baq wrote:
| Bing image creator seems to be on the right path to freemium:
| you get a few priority requests and then get bumped onto the
| slow free queue. If the thing keeps getting better as fast as
| it is right now they'll have lines in the checkout page.
| aetherane wrote:
| I don't like the fact that OpenAI is a private company, meaning
| that wealth will further concentrate from its growth. It is
| ironic too because it can't become public due to the pledge of
| it's non profit parent to restrict the profit potential of the
| for profit entity.
| mherrmann wrote:
| The Wolfram plugin also has extremely impressive examples [1].
|
| If I were OpenAI, I would use the usage data to further train the
| model. They can probably use ChatGPT itself to determine when an
| answer it produced pleased the user. Then they can use that to
| train the next model.
|
| The internet is growing a brain.
|
| 1: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-
| its...
| v4dok wrote:
| bye bye jupyter notebooks. This is big.
| baq wrote:
| absolutely... not. !pip install jupyter-
| chatgpt !chatgpt make me a notebook with this dataframe
| with such and such plots > here you are
| 0xDEF wrote:
| Is there a list of companies that have been made obsolete by
| ChatGPT?
| brokensegue wrote:
| yeah here's the list:
|
| 1.
| sharemywin wrote:
| Can't wait for the mturk, upwork and fiverr plugins.
| imhoguy wrote:
| humans as batteries in pods soon
| seydor wrote:
| they arent particularly good as batteries.
|
| ChatGPT , optimize these humans
|
| (btw how awkward that our robot overlord is called "Chat Gee
| Pee Tee")
| denis2022 wrote:
| [dead]
| sharemywin wrote:
| I wonder how you pay for it?
|
| Are the plugins going to cost more?
|
| Do they share the $20 with the plug provider?
|
| do you get charged a pay per use?
| iamflimflam1 wrote:
| The video in the "Code Interpreter" section is a must watch.
| embit wrote:
| This news excites me and scares the crap out of me at the same
| time.
| JCharante wrote:
| A first party version of apps that have been built with langchain
| is great but I'm dissapointed to not see Jira here yet.
|
| I have been playing around with GPT-4 parsing plaintext tickets
| and it is amazing what it does with the proper amount of context.
| It can draft tickets, familiarize itself with your stack by
| knowing all the tickets, understand the relationship between
| blockers, tell you why tickets are being blocked and the
| importance behind it. It can tell you what tickets should be
| prioritized and if you let it roleplay as a PM it'll suggest what
| role to be hiring for. I've only used it for a side project and
| I've always felt lonely working on solo side projects, but it is
| genuinly exciting to give it updates and have it draft emails on
| the latest progress. The first issue tracker to develop a plugin
| is what I'm moving towards.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| Tell me more. Are you feeding it a epic and all stories and
| subtasks? What are your prompts?
| gk1 wrote:
| The biggest deal about this is the ability to create your own
| plugins. The Retrieval Plugin is a kind of starter kit, with
| built-in integrations to the Pinecone vector database:
| https://github.com/openai/chatgpt-retrieval-plugin#pinecone
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| > whether intelligence can be achieved without any agency or
| intrinsic motivation is an important philosophical question.
|
| Important yes, philosophical no -- it's an empirical question.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The philosophical part is actually defining each of those terms
| so that there is an empirically-explorable question.
| jug wrote:
| Google is so f'ed right now.
|
| Can you imagine Google just released a davinci-003 like model in
| public beta? That only supports English and can't code reliably.
|
| OpenAI is clearly betting on unleashing this avalanche before
| Google has time to catch up and rebuild reputation. They're still
| lying in the boxing ring and the referee is counting to ten.
| amrb wrote:
| Does anyone else find the AI voice-over creepy? like they pause
| but give it away but not breathing.
| andre-z wrote:
| Another showcase video
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYaQBLLQri8
| throwaway2203 wrote:
| Do you need OpenAI plus for this?
| smy20011 wrote:
| It seems that OAI have their preference of choosing the first
| movers of their ecosystem.
| nmca wrote:
| Is this the app store moment for AI? (it certainly is for
| https://ai.com , aha)
| akavi wrote:
| I've got to wonder, how does a second player in the LLM space
| even get on the board?
|
| Like, this feels a lot like when the iPhone jumped out to grab
| the lion share of mobile. But the switching costs was much
| smaller (end users could just go out and buy an Android phone),
| and network effects much weaker (synergy with iTunes and the
| famous blue bubbles... and that's about it). Here it feels like a
| lot of the value is embedded in the business relationships
| OpenAI's building up, which seem _much_ more difficult to
| dislodge, even if others catch up from a capabilities
| perspective.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Google have really been caught with their pants down here.
|
| Remember that OpenAI was created specifically to stave off the
| threat of AI monopolization by Google (or anyone else - but at
| the time Google).
|
| DeepMind have done some interesting stuff with Go, Protein
| folding etc, but nothing really commercial, nor addressing
| their reason d'etre of AGI.
|
| Google's just-released ChatGPT competitor, Bard, seems
| surprisingly weak, and meantime OpenAI are just widening their
| lead. Seems like a case of the small nimble startup running
| circles around the big corporate behemoth.
| theGnuMe wrote:
| The groups are focused on different things.
|
| OpenAI went all in on generative models, i.e. stable
| diffusion and large language models. DeepMind focused on
| reinforcement learning, tree search, plus alphafold
| approaches to biology. FAIR has translation, pytorch, and
| some LLM stuff in biology.
|
| What OpenAI is missing though is any AI research in biology,
| but I bet they are working on it.
|
| I'm not sure if this makes sense but OpenAI seems to be
| operating at a higher level of abstraction (AGI) where they
| are integrating modalities (text and image modality for now,
| probably speech next) vs the other places have taken a more
| focused applied approach.
| [deleted]
| poszlem wrote:
| It reminds me of what went down with Netflix. At first, it
| looked like you only needed one subscription to watch
| everything, but now that other players have entered the market,
| with their own bussiness contacts we're seeing ecosystems
| fracture.
|
| For example, Microsoft is collecting data from services A, B,
| and C, while Google is gathering data from X, Y, and Z. And
| when it comes to language models, you might use GPT for some
| tasks and Llama or Bard for others. It seems like the fight
| ahead won't be about technology, but rather about who has
| access to the most useful dataset.
|
| Personally, I also think we'll see competitors trying to take
| legal action against each other soon.
| Vespasian wrote:
| 1) Not every use cases will require the full power and
| (probably) considerable cost of chat GPT-4.
|
| 2) some companies can absolutely not use OpenAI tools simply
| because they are American and online. A competitor might emerge
| to capture that market and be allowed to grow to be "good
| enough"
|
| 3) some "countries" (think China or EU(who am I Kidding)) will
| limit their growth until local alternatives are available.
| Ground breaking technology have a tendency to spread globally
| and the current state of the art is not that expensive (we are
| talking single digit billions once)
| bottlepalm wrote:
| I don't see much of a moat currently, or even developer lockin.
| The current APIs, and this new plugin architecture are dead
| simple.
| nikcub wrote:
| now add a ?q= url param to chat.openai.com that fills and submits
| the prompt and I'm changing it to my default browser search
| provider instantly
| seydor wrote:
| For expedia or an online shop it makes sense to pay openAI for
| the traffic. But how will a content website make money from this?
| "Tell me todays headlines" does not bring ad income. Will openAI
| be paying for this content?
| MichaelRazum wrote:
| Google=Nokia? It's just crazy that they were leading the field in
| "AI" and got blown away by OpenAI. Anyway to the expert's in the
| field, what do you think how hard is it to clone GPT-4 and what
| would be the hardest part? I had the impression that it is always
| about compute time and you could kind of catch up very quickly,
| if you had enough resources.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-23 23:00 UTC)