[HN Gopher] Let's Talk about ChatGPT with Code Interpreter and M...
___________________________________________________________________
Let's Talk about ChatGPT with Code Interpreter and Microsoft
Copilot
Author : stuckinhell
Score : 109 points
Date : 2023-05-23 16:59 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.oneusefulthing.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.oneusefulthing.org)
| loudmax wrote:
| I wonder about the copyright status of code put out by ChatGPT.
|
| I presume anything ChatGPT generates belongs to the user who
| asked for the code to be generated. Is there any clause in the
| EULA that says this is the case? Or is code generated by ChatGPT
| automatically BSD-licensed? Or can ChatGPT claim ownership or
| joint-ownership of code generated using their tools?
|
| Another question is the code it was trained on. Presumably all of
| it was open source. BSD-licensed code typically requires
| attribution. GPL code requires anything copied to remain GPL. If
| the GPT is reproducing small stanzas of code from memory it
| probably doesn't matter. If GPT reproduces larger blocks of code
| from stuff that it was trained on, there is a possibility of
| failing to comply with copyright.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I presume anything ChatGPT generates belongs to the user who
| asked for the code to be generated.
|
| Machine generated works cannot be copyrighted, only human-
| created works. The part here that has yet to be determined is
| whether or not AI output is considered "machine generated". An
| argument could be made that writing a prompt is sufficient
| control to consider the output human-made for the purposes of
| copyright. If that's the case, then copyright will go to the
| human who wrote the prompt (or their employer).
|
| This will, at some point, have to be decided in court. Right
| now, the only answer is "nobody knows".
| reachableceo wrote:
| So a binary created by a compiler isn't copyrighted ?
|
| Last I checked , that's not the case. Otherwise the entire
| proprietary software universe would collapse (not that having
| that outcome isn't desirable per se )
| JohnFen wrote:
| A binary created by a compiler is not machine-generated
| (for copyright purposes). A human wrote the program. The
| compiler just translated it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| A binary created by a compiler is exactly as much a
| deterministic result of the input and choice of compiler
| and settings without additional human creativity as, say,
| an image created by a prompt and a diffusion model, and
| the logic of the Copyright Office determination that
| prompt (if sufficiently a work of authorship) but not the
| output in the latter case is subject to copyright would,
| if applied consistently, seem to apply to the former case
| equally.
| lewhoo wrote:
| If the level of determinism is truly the same then I
| think that might play into the argument that AI output is
| indeed a statistical collage. And yes, human output might
| be as well but the burden of proof would be on the other
| side of the court. I'd really be careful with the
| parallels because I think we can agree that compilers
| don't work like LLMs. The output of a compiler isn't
| related to the previous programs it compiled in form of
| training data - so there is no fair use or not fair use
| question here. Dealing with something without precedence
| means we can't point to something else and expect an
| exact match.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I agree.
|
| I'm a little confused by the responses I'm getting to my
| comment. People seem to be thinking that I'm saying that
| copyright cannot apply to AI produced output. I said no
| such thing.
|
| What I _am_ saying is that this is not a legally settled
| matter. It will certainly end up in a courtroom, and will
| then become a settled matter. That day isn 't here yet.
| randyrand wrote:
| Photographers own their images, even if the scene was set up
| by someone else.
|
| Pushing a button is sufficient to own copyright, in theory.
| lewhoo wrote:
| I think in this case the product is the scene and not the
| picture though. If one could copyright the result of a
| prompt then I assume no one else could use the same (or
| very similar) prompt for profit as it is likely to produce
| similar code whereas a scene can be photographed for profit
| by anyone regardless if a similar picture has already been
| taken, or so I assume. If Andy Warhol just photographed
| Prince in a same/similar pose and clothes would there be
| the lawsuit case ? I don't think so.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Right, which is why I think that courts will end up
| deciding that writing a prompt is sufficient control. But
| as of this moment, none of this has been decided -- so
| nobody actually knows.
| YousefED wrote:
| What makes me most excited about this is that it uses LLMs in a
| way that the result (a computer program) is still understandable
| and editable (hackable).
|
| Instead of having an AI model output some kind of "black-box
| conclusion" on a data set / question, it can output code that we
| can inspect, improve, and learn from. Using LLMs in this way
| still keeps us as users "in control" - and I think it's a
| promising path for responsible AI.
|
| I've done some experiments[1] adding ChatGPT-like functionality
| to my open source Typescript Notebook environment[2] back in
| december, and hope to revisit this soon :)
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/YousefED/status/1599805936280907776 [2]
| https://www.typecell.org/
| derwiki wrote:
| I completely agree that the best LLM output is something that
| is still understandable/hackable -- and maybe even _needs_
| further hacking. That's what I tell people when they say "I
| heard AI is replacing programmers."
| oidar wrote:
| https://archive.is/20230504163052/https://www.oneusefulthing...
| anotherpaulg wrote:
| In shameless attempt to raise awareness about my open source
| gpt-4 coding tool "aider" [1], I replicated the author's US
| Census data analysis example from the command line. This doesn't
| require the beta ChatGPT plugins, just a gpt-4 api key.
|
| You can see in the chat transcript [2] that I had GPT-4 tell me
| how to download census data, suggest some hypotheses to test,
| test one, summarize the results and plot a graph. As we went
| along, I had it write the code for all that as a python script in
| my local git repo.
|
| [1] https://github.com/paul-gauthier/aider
|
| [2] https://aider.chat/examples/census.html
| Tostino wrote:
| Getting an API key has been just a waiting game here... Not
| been approved through work or personally yet after almost 3
| months. I already have plugin access though, it's...alright.
| The web browsing leaves a ton to be desired.
| anotherpaulg wrote:
| Ya, I'm not sure why I got lucky to receive one. For coding
| tasks, gpt-4 really is significantly better than 3.5. I've
| been building tools for coding with GPT for a few months now,
| and they got way more effective and reliable with gpt-4.
| padolsey wrote:
| For me the most awesome thing here is the 100MB file upload
| function. May sound like nothing, but this is groundbreaking when
| we've been so far constrained by token limits. This means we
| don't need to endure an arduous back-and-forth process of giving
| it tiny pieces of data, code, and increasingly creative prompts.
| It can now just injest an entire dataset or software project and
| make swathing changes of all manner. This is going to disrupt
| everything (and already is..).
|
| I'm left wondering what the role of a software eng is and all I
| can come up with is a glorified quality analyst. Nothing wrong
| with that, but it's just such a transformation, and so sudden.
| I'm excited, scared, and exhausted all at the same time!
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Nothing wrong with that
|
| Unless, of course, you want to be a software engineer.
|
| If all there is to my career is checking generated code for
| correctness, then there is nothing of value in my career
| anymore.
|
| That's not how it will be, though. At worst, there will still
| be niches I can fit in.
| [deleted]
| fbrncci wrote:
| I could imagine that we will probably be checking generated
| code for correcteness while integrating larger parts of
| generated code. And due to the sheer complexity will need an
| en engineering understanding to make it all work. I'm excited
| for that, because it means I can do more with my time. But I
| also understand how that is not everyone's cup of tea.
|
| > Unless, of course, you want to be a software engineer.
|
| It's time to adapt to a changing world.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I could imagine that we will probably be checking
| generated code for correcteness while integrating larger
| parts of generated code.
|
| So we're all to become systems integrators? I'm genuinely
| happy that excites you. Personally, I find the prospect
| depressing.
|
| > It's time to adapt to a changing world.
|
| How do you adapt to no longer being able to do what you
| love to do? Saying "it's time to adapt" doesn't address the
| fundamental issue here at all. Obviously, we have to adapt.
| The question is how to do that and, if happiness is no
| longer on the table, at least be able to maintain some
| amount of career satisfaction.
|
| If I can't write software, then my career as a dev is over,
| no?
| dudeofea wrote:
| learn to co....oh
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| D'oh. That one really didn't age well, did it?
| behnamoh wrote:
| Microsoft and Google adding LLMs to their ecosystem makes sense.
| But I don't see Apple adding something similar to MS Copilot to
| Numbers, Pages, etc. In a way, Apple seems to signal lack of hope
| for getting into the AI game. Soon, Apple will just be a
| "commodity" producer[0]: the company that makes the machines in
| the background, while other pioneers actually provide cutting
| edge technologies for those machines (e.g., local LLMs).
| Something like the oil companies, chip industry, etc. Apple will
| be making the iPhones and Macs and that's about it. They're too
| conservative to get out of their comfort zone now.
|
| In a weird way, it's actually still aligned with their "think
| different" motto: when everyone is thinking about getting on the
| AI bandwagon, think different and avoid doing that!
|
| [0]: Which is fine--the world needs boring companies as much as
| pioneers who break things.
| headcanon wrote:
| Apple has always been a consumer product-focused company. Even
| if computing continues to become more invisible and
| omnipresent, even if we no longer use laptops and phones, there
| will still be some kind of physical "product" at the end of the
| day, and thats where Apple will continue to exist. For LLMs, I
| don't see Apple opening up a general-purpose LLM or search
| engine like ChatGPT or Bing, its difficult to differentiate
| themselves in a meaningful way. I can see them developing a
| unique "personality" to Siri and integrating its behavior into
| existing devices and APIs. There's still a lot of room between
| where we are now and a personal AI-buddy like in "Her", so I
| imagine Apple is at least interested in moving in that
| direction.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Huh? The reality is "cutting edge" doesn't necessarily mean
| it's a great product for consumers.
|
| Also frankly, productionalizing LLMs is very different from
| making research strides on them. Even inside Google researchers
| are realizing that a bulk of the improvements are now coming
| from the OSS community.
|
| Apple will implement these technologies when it makes sense to
| do so.
| behnamoh wrote:
| cgpt is already a product that serves consumers very well. No
| need to "productionalize" it.
| moonchrome wrote:
| Or Apple will do what they always do, wait for the tech to
| mature then buy some big player like anthropic and integrate it
| into their products.
| behnamoh wrote:
| Their track record shows if they can't tightly control a
| technology, they won't touch it. LLMs can be bent in
| different ways and Apple wouldn't allow that. I own Apple
| devices, but I just don't see Apple play in the
| Google/MS/ClosedAI's field by saying "Our model is 20% larger
| than the best models out there...".
|
| Also, Apple should first fix Siri, or get rid of it for good.
| It's a joke at this point.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Siri is great! The on device recognition makes it far more
| reliable
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| I would argue that Siri is an example of a lightly
| controlled technology. My bet is that Apple will appear
| behind for 2-4 years and out of nowhere will launch a Spike
| Jonze's Her-style "Samantha" that was in R&D for years.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I don't think this is possible. There aren't that many AI
| researchers and they talk to each other. If Apple was
| making a serious AI push it would be obvious.
| noahtallen wrote:
| There actually have been rumors about this:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/22/apple-ramps-up-
| hiring-o... (and I remember hearing more before April as
| well.)
|
| I feel like any company which has chatbots as a "core"
| part of their systems (like Siri is often advertised to
| be) would be looking very heavily into generative AI. It
| makes way too much sense and would clearly make Siri way
| more useful. Imagine if Siri was current ChatGPT with
| plugins for interacting with the OS -- this immediately
| solves basically all the complaints about Siri. Plus
| Apple has efficient local AI acceleration already, which
| could make it even better.
|
| It feels so obvious it'd be weird if they _weren 't_
| trying to make a better Siri with gen AI! I have a
| feeling we'll hear about it either at WWDC or the iPhone
| event in the fall.
| behnamoh wrote:
| The thing about these technologies is that you can't
| repeat the same recipe for iPhone. Even 6 months is too
| long a time for a company to stay behind. The rate of
| progress in this field, combined with the insane VC money
| driven up by the hype around LLMs, means that no company
| can afford "surprising" everyone by waiting just a bit
| longer. Google did that and see where they are now.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I don't think I agree. The rate of progress in the field,
| I think, makes waiting until the dust settles a very
| smart move.
| noahtallen wrote:
| You're right, but we're talking about Apple. While they
| may not be able to introduce a ChatGPT competito, Siri
| basically has a captive audience. With OS-level
| integrations, you can easily imagine a much more powerful
| and interactive Siri which becomes popular just because
| it's available out of the box and offers OS level
| integrations which a 3rd party chatbot can't.
|
| It's also not like AI tools are why people buy Apple
| products. So "waiting" probably doesn't cost them much
| money -- it doesn't impact their core hardware and
| service revenue. It's "just" a value add for now.
| behnamoh wrote:
| If MS offers Copilot for office only on Windows, I for
| one will have an incentive to switch from Mac. And if
| Bing AI gets integrated into Windows, I'll most likely
| switch.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Not convinced. The most useful feature of the first iPhone
| was it's web browser. Apple had/has very loose control over
| what people use it for.
| behnamoh wrote:
| True, but Apple still controls what web engine you use on
| iOS and what extensions you can install there.
| cube2222 wrote:
| Which, according to rumors, will change soon and be
| announced on WWDC, due to EU regulation.
| wilg wrote:
| Hardly always their playbook, they rarely make big
| acquisitions like that. Siri back in the day, Beats, P.A.
| Semi, are the most notable acquisitions.
| judge2020 wrote:
| To be fair, it often seems like they've forgotten about all of
| their office apps outside of Keynote.
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| The wild bit about this is this: Imagine reading this comment 6
| months ago. A person would probably spit their drink out..but
| it is true. Apple will spend WWDC talking about XR like it is a
| 2021 Facebook Earnings Call.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Even wilder bit: imagine reading _any of this_ 6 months ago.
| ChatGPT just came out. It was a fun toy with some potential,
| but mostly seen as another example of the copilot-y "might
| make some jobs somewhat different in the mid-term future"
| tech demo.
|
| Who would've thought that in just four months, GPT-4 will
| completely transform people's perception of AI progress
| timeline and impact.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It's strange to me that you think Apple will become a
| "commodity" producer when it has the largest profit margins in
| the industry. Which is the exact opposite of how commodities
| function in economics. Yes Apple's focus is hardware as opposed
| to software, but there is commodity hardware and non-commodity
| hardware. Apple is firmly in the non-commodity camp and shows
| no signs of changing. Things like M2 chips are not "commodity".
|
| I have no idea what Apple will do with LLM's. But Apple is
| already leveraging ML in things like built-in local dictation
| and OCR, and we can probably expect that it will leverage
| things like LLM's at the OS level (iOS/macOS) rather than
| focusing on their iWork suite. (Honestly at this point I don't
| understand Apple's strategic purpose with iWork, or even Final
| Cut Pro.)
| htss2013 wrote:
| Do the high profits come from the hardware or from rent
| seeking behavior in the app store and elsewhere?
| crazygringo wrote:
| They definitely come from the hardware, I'm talking about
| profits from the sale of hardware alone.
|
| In April 2023, Apple has a 30% market share of smartphones
| worldwide [1]. And in the first 3 months of 2023, Apple
| accounted for 50% of global smartphone revenue... and _80
| percent of the industry 's profits_ [2]. These is
| smartphone revenue, not services revenue. (Apple makes
| money from the App Store too but that's separate.)
|
| 80% of industry profit from 30% market share is certainly
| not a commodity. Cheap Android phones are a commodity.
| iPhones are the polar opposite.
|
| [1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/smartphone-market-
| share#:~....
|
| [2] https://www.statista.com/chart/29925/apples-share-of-
| the-glo....
| justanotheratom wrote:
| Considering the cost of running these LLMs behind the scenes, and
| the giant customer base of Office, Windows, Bing, Edge, etc. I
| wonder how Microsoft will keep things profitable. I guess they
| can just raise subscription price of Microsoft 365 at some point.
| pixl97 wrote:
| With the operating costs of AI at this time, this is going to
| be the big question for everyone. One of these you can't afford
| not to have it, but your can't afford to have it either. With
| all this said, Microsoft/Google/Apple have been sucking up
| stupid profits for decades now and it really is time for their
| unlimited money machine to have some pushback.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Microsoft has tons of cash and on-going profits to be a loss
| leader for a while, also I imagine they will eventually limit
| some features to Microsoft 365 users only. They already charge
| extra for Teams with Copilot, etc; that's not a standard Teams
| feature. They also announced a "copilot" stack today, which I
| imagine they will charge for API usage on top of what they are
| going to be making from ChatGPT.
| simonw wrote:
| ChatGPT Code Interpreter really is incredibly useful.
|
| In addition to data analysis stuff, I've also used it for running
| comparative benchmarks:
| https://simonwillison.net/2023/Apr/12/code-interpreter/
|
| You can upload all sorts of weird things to it. I've uploaded
| .whl wheel files from PyPI to give it extra Python dependencies.
|
| I also uploaded a Deno (and a Lua) interpreter and that gave it
| the ability to write and execute code in JavaScript and Lua!
|
| https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/code-interpreter-expansio...
| taf2 wrote:
| Been using copilot with vim for a few weeks and my only issue has
| been when the file i'm editing is large the node process goes to
| like 100% and my typing is severely lagged... i quickly do
| :Copilot disable and move on with my day but really hoping the
| performance can improve, it's helpful when it works.
| michaelmior wrote:
| You may want to check out Codium[0]. I haven't used Copilot
| with Vim, but I've never experienced a CPU issue with Codium.
| Bonus is that it's free! (You would be right to be concerned
| about the something for nothing here. Personally I was
| satisfied by their blog post on the subject[1], but of course
| you need to decide what's right for you.)
|
| [0] https://www.codium.com/
|
| [1] https://codeium.com/blog/how-is-codeium-free
| occamschainsaw wrote:
| I really want to try the code interpreter. I got access to the
| plugins early but there was no browsing and interpreter. Then I
| got access to browsing when they released it widely last week.
| Does anybody know how to get access to the code interpreter? I
| have lost track of all the ${LLM_Service} waitlists I have signed
| up for.
| RecycledEle wrote:
| Same here.i also want the upload feature, which MY ChatGPT Plus
| lacks.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-23 23:02 UTC)