[HN Gopher] Ask HN: How did ChatGPT4 blew your mind lately?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: How did ChatGPT4 blew your mind lately?
What's the last time that ChatGPT4 blew your mind with its
response?
Author : endorphine
Score : 25 points
Date : 2023-05-06 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago)
| demarq wrote:
| It's ability to debug IS UNPARALLELED!
| subjectsigma wrote:
| This week between ChatGPT and Phind I asked an AI four questions.
| Two were about SMT-LIB, one was about homomorphic encryption, and
| one was about software-defined networking.
|
| Both ChatGPT and Phind insisted on giving me example SMT problems
| and then incorrect solutions to them. The HE answer was so vague
| as to be useless, and I don't actually know enough about SDN to
| verify the last one but it _seemed_ useful.
|
| Overall it didn't give me a lot of confidence in the two systems.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Honestly, it hasn't. Last night I was trying to use it/Bing to
| write a simple API request based on a JSON schema, and it failed
| miserably. Nothing super complicated either, it was just a poor
| fit. Both GPT3 and GPT4 repeatedly generated nonworking code,
| which surprised (and frustrated) me.
| jstarfish wrote:
| I've had astoundingly inconsistent results myself.
|
| Sometimes it'll write really elegant code that just nails the
| request. Other times it insists the task is impossible ("too
| complex"). Days later it'll do it without fuss.
|
| I suspect there's some sort of model shell game going on behind
| the scenes. The best results I get are _always_ outside of
| business hours.
| ftxbro wrote:
| > Other times it insists the task is impossible ("too
| complex").
|
| This is the lobotomization. It's interesting to watch the
| interviews with some red teamers and bing integration devs
| who had access before they did this to it. They are fully
| Blake Lemoine'd.
| ian0 wrote:
| I asked it to draft a legal document based on some bullet points
| and it created it, in a different language, in keeping with the
| legal norms of that country. I sent it to a local lawyer for
| review and they only came back with very minor things.
|
| Did the reverse with some regulatory documents too, asking it to
| summarise in vernacular then asking specific questions to better
| wrap my head around the docs. I wouldn't trust it fully for this
| of course, more like a supplementary learning aid.
|
| I keep hitting limits with context size though. Eg. When coding
| it becomes cumbersome once your project hits a certain
| complexity. You have to carefully construct prompts to get useful
| outputs. Being able to add the entire source code into a prompt
| to have more contextual responses would really increase utility.
| mk89 wrote:
| Out of curiosity, are you able to disclose the very minor
| things? You don't have to use the real terms etc., anonymised
| are good enough :)
| theRealMe wrote:
| Idk about "blow my mind" but I was surprised that it helped me
| figure out "the song at sporting events that goes "boom boom,
| ch"."
|
| Maybe that's an easy thing to know, but I expected to not get a
| good answer.
| roschdal wrote:
| ChatLGBT is still stuck in 2021, so humanity still has two years
| competitive advantage.
| noud wrote:
| ChatGPT4 blew my mind when I asked it some specific details about
| my PhD thesis. It was a relative simple question, but you needed
| to know some domain knowledge to give the correct answer. ChatGPT
| not only gave a wrong answer, it completely made up a story was
| beyond repair. It is concerning (blew my mind) how confident
| ChatGPT can provide a completely wrong answer.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Have you pasted (parts of) your thesis as context?
| was_a_dev wrote:
| Interestingly, I asked about my field of research it just
| outputed a combination of the two open-access review papers for
| the field.
|
| It was nothing special, nor not completely correct, but it is
| the first time I've been able to pinpoint ChatGPTs source.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| GPT4 seems to do a better job with not making up references
| than GPT3.5. Don't check the DOIs though
| was_a_dev wrote:
| Are those references just relevant sources, or actual
| citations?
|
| For my example I knew of the sources already. ChatGPT
| didn't make the connection
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Sometimes either just relevant or actual citations, I've
| seen both. If you ask for specific citations for a
| specific phrase it's basically a coin flip what you get,
| what you get could be fake citations
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| A recent thesis is a single datapoint at the edge of human
| knowledge. These bots will necessarily be better at parsing
| information with more interconnectedness closer to the core of
| existing human knowledge.
| themoonisachees wrote:
| I've been automating some of our team's most menial tasks and
| since we're in a corporate environment we don't have control over
| what is and isn't installed on our servers, so using bash is the
| sane default choice.
|
| None of the scripts it produced are incredible or whatever (the
| tasks being more menial than lohic-based), but considering the
| intricacies of bash and how often I just faceplant into them as
| an experienced sysadmin, if feel as though the ability to just
| say "write a script that compares a list of agents against every
| manager and outputs the ones not found anywhere" and have it
| output basically a working script first try is impressive.
| akasakahakada wrote:
| Got a novel idea about some math and GPT4 give me legit advices
| and implications.
| micahscopes wrote:
| I recently used it (in combination with copilot) to implement
| weighted, blended, order-independent transparency for a network
| visualization project I'm working on... in just one long evening.
|
| Only to realize in the process that all I really needed was to
| modify the shader program's blend mode. Never in my wildest
| imagination a year ago would I even dream of implementing WBOIT
| in one night and then just leaving it in a branch.
|
| In the process I also came up with a little trick on my own,
| using what I learned, of modifying the depth values a bit in my
| fragment shader in a way that let me selectively blend/occlude
| stuff.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| As a side project I've been writing a tool that drives GPT4 for
| coding purposes. It finds FIXME comments and equips the LLM with
| a set of high level shell commands it can use to explore the
| codebase and edit the files. This works well and I find it
| superior to the (often semi-broken) chat UI that OpenAI provide.
| There's no need for copy paste, and it can be given instructions
| like // FIXME: Implement this class paying
| attention to the unit tests
|
| at which point it will go look up the unit test class, read it,
| understand what the code needs to do and proceed to edit the
| necessary algorithms into the code. The tool is a mix of response
| parsing/execution and prompt building, so it can do
| builds/tests/fix cycles. At the end you get a git branch with the
| work it's done.
|
| By this point I'm kinda developing an intuition for what GPT4 can
| and can't do, but whilst pushing against what it _can_ do I still
| often find myself being impressed. Maybe not "mind blown"
| anymore because it's amazing how quickly you can get used to this
| stuff, but still. Not only does it do an excellent job of
| figuring out what to do when the instructions are clear enough,
| but it also has commands for adding library dependencies and will
| use relevant open source libs to make its job easier.
|
| The hard part about using this sort of tool is that you can
| quickly become bottlenecked on figuring out what it is you
| actually want. It's easy to run ahead of yourself and end up with
| a mess. This sort of very rapid "painting with code" feel is a
| bit new; probably the slowness of typing allows your subconscious
| to think ahead a bit when doing programming normally. Also, I'm
| still teaching it how to explore the codebase efficiently so
| things that require a lot of context aren't quite there yet. I've
| got a whole plan for how to make that work better though.
|
| I expect at some point soon some big company or some $100M "seed
| round" startup will come along and do this better, but I didn't
| want to wait.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| That i'm finally breaking my "just google it" habits for
| technical stuff.
|
| Had it write non blocking micro-controller code for a project
| (about 75% of the output was put into production) it helped
| making variable names and general structure. The first output was
| bad because it blocked the button read while "breathing" and led
| but then I told it: "non blocking code please".
| lukevp wrote:
| I see a lot of replies here talking about asking GPT questions in
| a domain an individual is an expert in, and being disappointed in
| the results. I think this is missing the point a bit. The
| impressive part of GPT isn't that it's an expert in anything, but
| that it's better than an average human on many topics. For
| example - someone brought up GPT not comprehending homomorphic
| encryption fully. Well, I have a MS in CS and have been
| professionally developing software for 15 years, and I've even
| READ articles on homomorphic encryption multiple times, but I
| can't articulate what it is very well. I just remember it's
| inefficient and infeasible at this time.
|
| The thing that is mind blowing to me is that I can talk with GPT
| about basically any topic and it can help get me in the right
| direction, I can talk with it to get clarity on anything that's
| confusing, and it's like a way to collaborate on thought without
| a human. That's mindblowing to me!
| bradgessler wrote:
| I describe GPT as _really_ good at bridging contexts. As you
| point out, it does a great job pointing you in the right
| direction on pretty much any topic. I was using it with my 7 yo
| daughter and asked it to explain calculus in a way a 7 yo could
| understand and it did a pretty good job.
| was_a_dev wrote:
| I agree. I use it in research to discover solutions or fields
| I wasn't even aware that exist
|
| Once discovered, I can go search more conventionally for more
| reputable sources
| Waterluvian wrote:
| If ChatGPT is impressive when discussing any subject, unless
| you're an expert, it should be a journalist.
|
| Okay, I know that sounds like a sleight but I mean it in
| reverse: we give it a hard time for failing at something humans
| can't do either: be an expert at everything. Journalists do a
| great job despite regularly driving SMEs nuts.
|
| I use it not for querying immutable truths but for exploring
| topics. It trivializes what used to be paralyzing for me:
| "where do I begin if I want to learn about X?"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-06 23:02 UTC)