[HN Gopher] 1-800-ChatGPT
___________________________________________________________________
1-800-ChatGPT
Author : yzydserd
Score : 276 points
Date : 2024-12-18 19:03 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (help.openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (help.openai.com)
| xattt wrote:
| Memories of GOOG411! And probably same purpose of this. (1)
|
| (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOOG-411
| sleek wrote:
| Yes! Instant memories
| ssl-3 wrote:
| I'm also reminded of TellMe. [0]
|
| In the days before we had pocket supercomputers, I used both of
| these services occasionally while out and about.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tellme_Networks
| qwertox wrote:
| I don't think it's the same purpose. YouTube, TV and Movies
| offers enough speech samples and a lot of content is dubbed to
| other languages, and alot of this content already has the
| transcripts available.
|
| They know who's calling, and the greeting was something like
| "Hello again". They are catching up at building a competitive
| database of persons and their preferences at the scale of
| FAANG. They're moving over from collecting info for their
| models to collecting info from their users for their agents.
| This is what they need to offer good agents.
|
| But I might be wrong and it's just phoneme collection, as you
| speculate.
| nirvanatikku wrote:
| Agreed on the broader use of data. That said, it's not just
| about phoneme collection--different channels and UX
| modalities reach different audiences and contexts. Each
| channel ultimately delivers unique inputs, fueling more
| specialized and robust models tailored to those specific use
| cases.
| paxys wrote:
| Regular human conversational voice, especially over the
| phone, is going to be a gold mine for training customer
| support AI agents. Actors reading movie scripts can't really
| provide that amount of relevance.
| cj wrote:
| "This call is being recorded for quality and training
| purposes" truly has a new meaning.
| mbauman wrote:
| GOOG411 was actually very helpful in the dumbphone/limited-
| cell-data era! I'm not sure why I'd use this now.
|
| It also brings back memories of trying random (and known) 800
| numbers from payphones.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Must have been tough thinking of an easy to remember phone
| number, and this ain't it.
| verst wrote:
| It made more sense at the time. 411 is an actual directory
| service (similar to dialing 0 for the operator). [1]
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/411_(telephone_number)
| dylan604 wrote:
| What's the haps? What's the skinney? What's the 411?
|
| 3 questions that Gen-Zers probably have never heard asked
| and will never ask themselves
| riffic wrote:
| N11 codes are a particular curiosity of the
| electromechanical switching systems used to set up
| circuits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N11_code
| verst wrote:
| I used to use GOOG-411 all the time before I had a smart phone.
| I must have provided so much training data that it is no
| surprise Google from early on has been very good at Speech-to-
| Text conversion of my particular accent :D
| ghurtado wrote:
| Does anyone else remember a very short lived Google experiment
| that allowed you to call a number, vocalize your search, and
| somehow without any additional steps, the results appeared on
| the browser in front of you? (which was not connected to the
| phone, or even logged into a Google account)
| ipaddr wrote:
| Sounds impossible. Are you calling on the same phone your
| browser is?
| krackers wrote:
| It might be possible if the browser plays some high
| frequency inaudible tone that's picked up by the phone
| cco wrote:
| 100% shipped to show off to family during Christmas.
|
| I'll definitely give it a go, I wonder if this lands better with
| those aged 50+ who are more used to phone calls rather than chat.
| WhitneyLand wrote:
| So the perception of those aged 50+, is one of people so far
| removed from technology they'd prefer to use a telephone to
| avoid their discomfort with computers?
|
| I'm well into this group and still make a lot more api calls
| than phone calls.
|
| Fresh out of college I recall vividly thinking, I'll need to
| build an impressive list of side projects to overcome
| preconceptions about how much I can truly offer at my age.
| Maybe nothing has changed.
| dingnuts wrote:
| the idea that someone who was 20 in 1995 is too old to be
| comfortable with computers is a horrifying and offensive
| stereotype that deeply worries me for my own future
|
| our industry is old enough that the first generation of
| pioneers has died of old age.
|
| Do you really think someone who grew up with computers in the
| 80s is incapable of using a smart phone? These are people who
| are still in the workforce today. These are your most skilled
| colleagues.
|
| Some of them probably designed the device you think they're
| too old to understand
| ericd wrote:
| I don't think anyone is denying the existence of
| Greybeards, it's more that the field has exploded so much
| in the meantime that the probability of a random 30 year
| old being in it is much higher than the probability of a
| random 50 year old.
| vel0city wrote:
| > someone who was 20 in 1995 is too old to be comfortable
| with computers
|
| I know people who are in their 20s and 30s who seem to be
| uncomfortable with computers, cloud technology, and
| especially AI.
|
| In some ways I'm one of them. I will never let an always
| listening AI helper be in my home. And I'm <40.
| xattt wrote:
| That's different. One is fear of the unknown, the other
| is a precautionary fear of what could be.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Not really. A lot of people in their 20s might have never
| actually done much with a computer, yet they cannot put
| their phone down. I know lots of 20-somethings that
| cannot type. I know even more that do not own a
| traditional "computer". It has nothing to do with fear,
| but lack of need.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| I had chatgpt read through my recent bloodwork results and
| helped me understand it better than my doctor.
|
| 50+ are going to be so addicted to this thing its not even
| funny. My parents are not reaching for AI immediately yet,
| but thats just a yet. This is the wave that could come at any
| moment.
| conductr wrote:
| I think the SMS chat feature this enables is of more
| significance than the actual voice calling feature.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| My dad sells farming-related equipment to mostly older people
| and there are still people more comfortable giving him their
| credit card info over the phone instead of purchasing on his
| website online.
|
| (Though I see that as mostly a failure of our financial
| industry. Credit card numbers should be obsolete by now.)
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Sonny, people in their 50s were sending smileys on their Nokias
| before Zuck had even thought of Facebook...
| stevenj wrote:
| Your comment made me lol. And it's very rare for that to
| happen to me via reading text. And I needed it today. So I
| just wanted to tell you thank you and I hope you have a good
| day.
| dantyti wrote:
| > Your comment made me lol. And it's very rare for that to
| happen to me via reading text.
|
| If anyone else reading this is in a place like you've
| described, try 1900hotdog.com
| jph00 wrote:
| Umm... do you actually know anyone 50+? You know, for instance,
| the co-authors of "AI: A Modern Approach" are both 50+?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| ? why is the authorship of this book relevant
| glenstein wrote:
| Because it shows that it's perfectly plausible for people
| ages 50 plus to appreciate the value out of these
| technologies every bit as much as us whippersnappers. Some
| of them are writing books about it, after all
| whimsicalism wrote:
| those books are not really at all about the techniques
| used in llms
| swatcoder wrote:
| You're surely right that they anticipate it being be a novelty
| that people share during holiday visits.
|
| But as you can probably tell from the other replies, the idea
| that older people don't know how to use internet-era technology
| is a meme that was wearing thin 20 years ago already.
|
| People who haven't had ChatGPT "land" for them yet are likely
| just people who don't find themselves asking a lot of questions
| they need a chatbot to answer, regardless of the medium. _That_
| probably has some age skew right now, but isn 't really about
| the medium at all.
| conductr wrote:
| I'm a few years from 50 and while Google has deteriorated my
| Google fu and ability to see signals through the noise still
| serves me well enough and is my comfort zone.
|
| When I dabble with chatgpt it always feels like I'm playing
| with a toy as I don't really have a use case I'm taking to
| it. I've used a few websites creators and code generators
| which have been useful but also I don't think they saved me
| much time overall. Web design, graphic design, etc and
| creative stuff are things I suck creating so it gives me a
| new power and is easy to iterate on. Otherwise, I've not
| found much actual value from it yet.
|
| If it makes you much more efficient in your job, like it does
| for professional software devs, many of HN users, then i
| think you're more apt to be excited by the tech
| amclennon wrote:
| Between purchasing chat.com, and this new 800 number, I sometimes
| feel like OpenAI is really channeling that 90s dot com era
| energy.
| kibwen wrote:
| And ChatGPT _still_ does lets me do less today than Zombo.com
| let me do in 1999.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| You could do ANYTHING at zombo.com, if I remember correctly.
| At zombo.com, anything was possible.
|
| EDIT: There is one limit at zombo.com. The limit is myself.
| samcgraw wrote:
| You, yes, you, can still do anything at https://zombo.com.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| I still can't do things that I can't do, because at
| zombo.com, I am my own limit.
| layer8 wrote:
| But the unattainable is unknown at zombo.com.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| That's only because Zombo had _everything_. It was the
| original everything app /site that Musk so desperately wants
| X to be. Nothing can top that - not even AI.
| jaredsohn wrote:
| OpenAI acquisition/synergizing/rebrand to zombo.com incoming
| and then we'll complain about them ruining Zombo.
| deadfa11 wrote:
| Zombo.com really had everything, way ahead of its time. It's
| been a while... maybe since the last time I lost the game.
| layer8 wrote:
| We need 1-800-ZOMBOCOM.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I'm all for it! Maybe they'll start auctioning off pixels on
| openai.com.
| codetrotter wrote:
| If you're quick, you might be able to grab a 88x31 spot!
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Feels like something Google would do in the early days, but not
| now.
| wibbily wrote:
| Nothing new under the sun
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOOG-411
| jonny_eh wrote:
| That's what I was thinking of. Ironically, no amount of
| googling surfaced it for me, so I thought I imagined it.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Next month we'll have LetterGPT and by 2026 they'll introduce
| MorseGPT to let us communicate via telegram
| ravenstine wrote:
| Why stop there? We could have ChatGPT the breakfast cereal!
| ChatGPT the coloring book! ChatGPT the _flamethrower!_ (the
| kids love that one)
|
| The scary thing is it's actually conceivable to somehow
| integrate GPT into those things.
| sterlind wrote:
| ChatGPT the breakfast cereal is just alphabet bites.
| Nutritious but the next-token prediction accuracy is
| terrible.
| jaredsohn wrote:
| FaxGPT as well
| svieira wrote:
| And its close cousin FauxGPT
| area51org wrote:
| Don't leave out ChatTelex and ChatCarrierPigeon.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Controversial take: LLMs are the first time in a while that I
| have felt like emerging technology trends is doing something
| cool and adding value.
|
| For the past 8-10 years it has all felt like a bunch of apps
| that just aim to be mediocre middlemen/gig economy brokers with
| bad customer service.
| itishappy wrote:
| > a bunch of apps that just aim to be mediocre middlemen/gig
| economy brokers with bad customer service
|
| Isn't this the new LLM playbook?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| How so?
|
| I pay Claude/ChatGPT trivial amounts of money for metered
| API access to their models, and they in turn provide it to
| me.
|
| Middlemen/marketplace models like "Uber for x" or "Etsy for
| x" or "Betterhelp for x" is a totally different business
| model.
| itishappy wrote:
| I had in mind the surge in LLM chat support and the surge
| in thin ChatGPT wrappers with a custom system prompt.
| Claude/ChatGPT do seem useful, "an AI companion for
| Microsoft Paint" less so.
| vasco wrote:
| And now we will have mediocre middlemen/gig economy brokers
| with bad customer service performed by AI agents that you can
| summarize with chatgpt and automatically reply back to.
| Progress!!
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| > doing something cool
|
| Yes.
|
| > and adding value.
|
| No. The only breakthrough innovation LLMs gave us is the
| ability to speedrun the making of racist pictures. Not sure
| the world really benefited.
| finnh wrote:
| I don't think this was your intent, but the only
| interpretation here is that you think the rapid creation of
| racist pictures is cool.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| LLMs don't generate images at all.
| abixb wrote:
| I agree. A good chunk of the tech trends in the last decade
| were indeed rent seeking, but silent revolution was happening
| in the transformers and the neural network architecture
| domain, which made today's products possible.
|
| And I'd wager that there are silent revolutions happening all
| across colossus that's the tech industry that will become
| apparent in the next decade.
|
| Jeff Bezos put it best during his recent interview at the
| 2024 NYTimes Dealbook Summit, "We're living in multiple
| golden ages at the same time." There's never been a better
| time to be alive.
| hypeatei wrote:
| I agree about an abundance of apps, but what type of value
| are LLMs adding?
|
| It can sometimes be useful to input a more "human" search and
| have something get spit out but 60% of the time it completely
| lies to you. I'm talking about questions related to web
| specifications which are public documents. Section numbers,
| standards names, etc.. will be completely made up.
| jklinger410 wrote:
| > but 60% of the time it completely lies to you
|
| This is such an exhausting conversation
| hansonkd wrote:
| i think when people say things like this it indicates
| that they tried LLMs in 2022 and solidified their opinion
| there.
|
| I had the same impression about the hallucinations 2
| years ago. The reality is in at the end of 2024, you can
| get incredible value from LLMs.
|
| I've used copilot to code almost exclusively now for the
| past few months. Anyone still comparing it to text
| completion I feel is operating on completely out of date
| information either intentionally or unintentionally.
| beefnugs wrote:
| Wait do you expect people to retry every failed thing
| they have tried due to marketing lies every how often
| exactly?
| jklinger410 wrote:
| Do you expect the first iteration of every product to be
| perfect?
| dayjah wrote:
| This is a thin edge of the wedge issue, right? ChatGPT is
| pretty darn good for most things. I've used it extensively
| for the past 18 months and only in a few cases would I say
| it "completely lied to me".
|
| My general rubric is: "would I trust someone on Reddit to
| correctly guide me on this". If the answer is "yes" then
| ChatGPT is likely going to do well. If the volume on a
| particular subject is low / susceptible to false
| information then it'll lie.
|
| Recently it lied hard about how to configure MikroTik
| routers. I lost many hours. But for a large construction
| project recently it completely balled out.
|
| Are you doing cutting edge / complicated stuff? Have you
| examples of where it lies?
| therein wrote:
| I don't want to turn this into another Claude lies less
| than ChatGPT subthread but since you mentioned
| configuration of MikroTik routers I felt like I should.
|
| ChatGPT lies a lot about RouterOS, I don't know why.
| Claude helped me a lot on the other hand with all things
| MikroTik.
| dayjah wrote:
| Thanks! I'll give it a shot when I get to the vlan stuff
| I've on deck
| hypeatei wrote:
| > Have you examples of where it lies?
|
| No specific prompts, but most were related to the
| XHR/Fetch specs and behaviors within. It would say "X.Y.Z
| sections defines this" but that section didn't exist at
| all and the answer provided was not accurate.
|
| > My general rubric is: "would I trust someone on Reddit
| to correctly guide me on this". If the answer is "yes"
| then ChatGPT is likely going to do well
|
| I see. Well, I don't know if I find that very valuable
| but if others do, then so be it.
| adamc wrote:
| I've asked it for things like book recommendations and
| gotten: - completely made up books
| - real books that were only marginally related -
| real books with really bad reviews
|
| I'd estimate that only 30-40% of the time did I find the
| results at all useful.
| airstrike wrote:
| stop using it like a database that you can query
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| I wonder how many people are promoting it correctly. You
| can't just query it like you might for google or
| something. It works best with lots of context and back
| and forth. And yeah, for many things you are going to get
| directional answers not exact ones (esp with "rote
| memory" like exact quotes from a book or something.)
| bigfudge wrote:
| Agreed this is a bad idea in the case you are replying
| to, but I love ChatGPT as a way to recover the name of a
| book or film I've forgotten. I recently prompted for "a
| book about nuclear wasteland dominated by a church" and
| it gave me A canticle for Leibowitz (which is great). I'm
| not sure how easy that would be any other way.
| rajamaka wrote:
| The value to me is by having an on-demand junior developer
| working alongside me for the price of $20 a month
| ipaddr wrote:
| Mine is a senior developer with memory lapses.
| airstrike wrote:
| And that sometimes you need to bully a bit to get coerced
| answers out of... feels bad
| hypeatei wrote:
| My experience with code completion tools (i.e. single
| line/method snippets) has been positive. But, anything
| more complicated seems to fall apart rather quickly.
| stonedge wrote:
| I have upgraded to the $200 Pro tier, and, with o1-pro,
| all of my tasks delegated to the "junior" have been so
| much better. It takes longer to complete, of course, but
| the overall duration is less because I'm not having to go
| back and correct it as much as I was with 4o. It's been
| able to figure out problems that 4o continually failed
| on.
| drusepth wrote:
| LLMs have been a personal tutor to me for the last year,
| able to explain anything and everything I've been curious
| about professionally and personally. I changed jobs to new
| technologies in large part because I effectively had an
| assistant able to help cover any gaps in knowledge I had,
| train me up quickly, and offer ongoing help on the job.
|
| They can make stuff up, but saying "60% of the time they
| lie to you" hasn't been true for years.
| krger wrote:
| >They can make stuff up, but saying "60% of the time they
| lie to you" hasn't been true for years.
|
| If you're using them to fill knowledge gaps, what
| scaffolding have you set up to ensure that those gaps
| aren't being filled with incorrect-but-plausible-sounding
| information?
| rtsil wrote:
| Off the top of my head, and just for the last couple of
| months, and only outside of work (where its value is even
| more immense), it has saved one of my indoor plants, told
| me how to handle a major boiler problem that would have
| left us without a working boiler during a weekend in the
| winder, with the next "emergency" repairman only available
| on Monday, advised me to use Kopia as backup solution for
| my personal files instead of Syncthing, helped me choose
| the right type of glass for a painting frame, answered a
| couple of questions about bikes and helped me when I was
| stuck in an harmonic analysis of a piece of music. All of
| that are extremely valuable to me (if only for the time not
| wasted googling answers), and in none of them its potential
| hallucinating would have been an issue. And I can't count
| the number of times where "specialists" in bike repairs or
| plumbing told me something incorrect or outright false, so
| I've learned to deal with hallucinations already!
| vel0city wrote:
| > And I can't count the number of times where
| "specialists" in bike repairs or plumbing told me
| something incorrect or outright false, so I've learned to
| deal with hallucinations already!
|
| So much this. So many times I've argued with hired
| experts saying "can't be done" just to see yes, it can be
| done.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Yes, but which of those things would you not have
| resolved just as well 10 years ago? All those
| possibilities were added by the maturing web itself, as a
| genuinely novel change from having to source books or
| experts/friends in the days before.
|
| I'm glad ChatGPT didn't lead you astray, but I'm not
| seeing what it's _added_ here besides shuffling up the
| user interface in a way that you presently and
| subjectively prefer?
| fragmede wrote:
| objectively, it takes less time to ask a question and get
| a direct answer than it does to search for some words,
| leaf through a couple of results, find one that has the
| information you want, and then read that page. If I want
| to know the height of the Eiffel tower, being told it's
| 1083 meters tall is faster than searching for its
| website, finding the stats section, then locating that
| information on the page. Google realizes that, so they
| pull that info out of the page and just put it on the
| results page for you.
| rtsil wrote:
| My plant would have been dead. As for the rest, sure, I
| would have resolved them eventually, after many
| frustrated hours of googling and trial and error.
|
| Time is my most precious thing, I already don't have
| enough time to do all the things that I want to do, I
| don't want to waste that trying to find and test
| solutions when ChatGPT gives me instant answers. I'd
| rather spend time playing with my cats or riding a bike
| instead. It's not a matter of UI, it's a matter of
| preventing waste of time, energy and money, and less
| frustration. For that alone, EUR20/month is a very good
| value. And that's just for my personal life.
| swatcoder wrote:
| "many hours of frustrated googling and trial and error"
| isn't a familiar experience to me, but I'll trust that it
| is for you. I'm glad you see that as behind you now with
| this. I suppose you must not be alone.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I find it useful, and it brings value to me (literally: I
| exchange valuable money for API access), even if it doesn't
| for you. Many other people report the exact same thing.
| Just because you don't find value in a technology, doesn't
| mean that others don't.
|
| In the past week I have used it for helping write a script
| in a framework I'm not super familiar with (OpenSCAD), I
| was able to finish a project in 5 minutes that otherwise
| would have taken me hours. I have used it to help make
| movie recommendations (none of them were hallucinated). I
| have used it to translate a conversation with a non-english
| speaker, etc. There are other tools that can help me do all
| of these things, but none quite as fast or painlessly.
|
| It might not be useful for your use case of asking
| questions related to specific web specs, but that doesn't
| mean that the technology has no value. Horses for
| courses...
| lxgr wrote:
| That's because we're currently largely not using them
| correctly, i.e. hooked up to RAG instead of hoping that
| they've memorized enough of the training data verbatim,
| which is arguably a waste of neurons in a foundational
| model.
|
| Imaging being graded on your ability to quote exact line
| numbers of particular parts of your codebase as a senior
| software engineer without being able to look at it!
|
| LLMs are not, _in isolation_ , a search product.
| emptysea wrote:
| Have you tried a Waymo yet? Honestly the coolest tech I've
| seen/used in ages
|
| Lots of engineering involved
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| No. Never even seen one, since I don't live in the
| US/California.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I'd (generally) agree. About 5 minutes of using Flux, Claude
| or Suno would have provided more net new value than I've yet
| to get out of blockchain, self driving, gig brokers,
| metaverse, 5G, AR/VR, quantum computing, hyperloop, and
| whatever people were trying to make web3 be combined over the
| years. Not that I don't think all of these things will always
| perpetually fail to deliver (hell, if I had a chance to try
| Waymo already then self driving probably wouldn't be on the
| list), just the hype cycles were unrelated to when that
| delivery occurred (if ever).
|
| The hard part is, despite actually having some "real" value
| delivered, you still have to sort through the 99% of bullshit
| that comes along with it anyways.
| becquerel wrote:
| I will personally say that if you ever get the chance,
| definitely try a Waymo. I did recently for the first time
| and it's a hell of an experience. You can very vividly
| imagine it being the future.
|
| I'm also going to stand up for AR/VR here. I'm in a long-
| distance relationship and me and my partner spend an hour
| or so in VRChat around two to three times a week. The power
| that has to reduce the badness of an LDR is well well well
| well worth the three hundred bucks I paid for a Quest. That
| and some of the golf games on it are fun.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I am super stoked to try a Waymo when I'm in a city with
| one. It's hype failures have more to do with 10 years of
| hype about its public availability yet not being
| available to 99% of the world's population 10 years
| later. Hype is useless without the result.
|
| I've had an HTC Vive and an Oculus Rift 3 (Walkabout Mini
| Golf is one I tried!) and while I wouldn't try to argue
| NOBODY has found a use for it (somebody somewhere found
| uses for all of the things I mentioned, just not me and
| just not the majority of people like big new things are
| promised to) it never really ticked the "new value" box
| before they ended up in the closet for me.
| smokel wrote:
| Don't forget the vast (and parallel) improvements in image
| processing.
| dylan604 wrote:
| yeah, we were definitely stagnant when the focus was on
| crypto
| joshuaturner wrote:
| AOL keyword "chat"
| yzydserd wrote:
| Launch video. Love the flashing banner.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/live/LWa6OHeNK3s
| zekrioca wrote:
| Those two persons fixedly looking to the other person reading
| some teleprompter that announces this feature -- likely written
| by ChatGPT -- is the weirdest thing ever.
| Sean-Der wrote:
| No teleprompters!
|
| We had a video monitor in front of us showing the live feed,
| that kept distracting me personally.
| zekrioca wrote:
| Oops :)
|
| I meant no disrespect, but from 2' or so, the conversation
| sounded more natural and things got smooth. Interest
| feature and I liked the 80's banner with the phone # like
| in the old TV ads!
| Sean-Der wrote:
| Thank you! I didn't feel any disrespect :)
|
| I was always curious how things worked when I saw
| announcements on HN. So happy to share to satiate the
| next generations curiosity :)
| TripleChecker wrote:
| It's December, so I guess this isn't an April Fool's joke.
| asdev wrote:
| more gimmicks than actual progress. scaling limits and
| intelligence barrier has definitely been hit
| syspec wrote:
| More likely, there are different groups of engineers working on
| these features.
|
| It's likely the people implementing the WhatsApp feature, are
| not the ones working on the LLM models.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| Probably more about how they're choosing to use resources
|
| If they believe AGI is around the corner and they are
| competing with others to get there, seems silly to invest
| resources in standing up a phone line, etc.
| sswatson wrote:
| Not if the data they'll collect in the process is going to
| be valuable for the training effort.
| asdev wrote:
| the 12 days of OpenAI has been a complete dud so far, only
| incremental improvements
| Sean-Der wrote:
| I worked on this.
|
| My background isn't AI so I can't contribute to that. My
| background is WebRTC/telephony so I could build this. Even if I
| was involved in 'AI stuff' I would have zero impact, but I can
| build this!
| aleksi wrote:
| It is such a weird thing to see Afghanistan in a list of
| supported countries:
| https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7947663-chatgpt-supporte...
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Voice training.
| sterlind wrote:
| Afghanistan and Turkmenistan are allowed, but not China or
| Russia. Which makes legal sense, I guess, but did the Taliban
| takeover just take place too recently for Afghanistan to be
| placed on the embargo list?
| teejmya wrote:
| https://archive.is/YR7mU
| paxys wrote:
| I hope they introduce a way to use Plus plan features/models.
| Would be neat to do quick queries in WhatsApp and forward results
| to friends & family without context switching/copy pasting.
| behnamoh wrote:
| something tells me all these bells and whistles around gpt are
| signs that scaling laws have plateaued, otherwise OpenAI et al.
| would focus more on improving model quality.
|
| Maybe GPT-4 is the 1080p of LLMs: Noticeably better than 720p and
| 480p models, and not bad enough to warrant additional
| improvements.
|
| Sure, 4K, 8K, ... are technologically available, but for the
| majority of use cases, 1080p is enough. Similarly, even though o1
| and other models are technically feasible, for most cases the
| current models are enough.
|
| In fact, GPT-4 is more than enough for 80% of tasks (text
| summarization, Apple (un)Intelligence, writing emails, tool use,
| etc.)--small models (<32B) are perfectly fine for those tasks
| (and they keep getting better too.)
| whimsicalism wrote:
| o1 is way better than gpt-4 imo, feel that many people just
| don't have complicated tasks/questions they have to do in their
| day to day. it's like a half jump between 3.5 and 4 to me
| behnamoh wrote:
| > many people just don't have complicated tasks/questions
| they have to do in their day to day
|
| This is what worries me. Aside from programmers and few other
| professions, most jobs in our civilization are prime for
| automation...
| ravenstine wrote:
| That's not been my experience, though I guess it depends on
| what you're using o1 for.
|
| My experience is that o1 is extremely good at producing a
| series of logical steps for things. Ask it a simple question
| and it will write you what feels like an entire _manual_ that
| you never asked for. For the most part I 've stopped caring
| about integrating AI into software, but I could see o1 being
| good for writing _prompts_ for another LLM. Beyond that, I
| have a hard time calling it better than GPT-4+.
|
| How have you been using o1?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| lots of coding tasks, discussions about physics/QM. I find
| that it produces better quality answers than 4o, which
| often will have subtle but simple mistakes.
|
| Even writing, where it is supposed to be worse than 4O, I
| feel that is does better/has a more solid understanding of
| provided documents.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| > discussions about physics/QM
|
| Interesting, could you share an example of this where it
| provides something of value? I've tried asking a few
| different LLMs to explain renormalization group theory,
| and it always goes off the rails in five questions or
| less.
| infecto wrote:
| Yes, surely they only have one type of Software Engineer and
| they all know how to improve model quality.
|
| Alternatively, does it not seem more likely that they have
| different product groups? Surely the folks working on ChatGPT
| are an entirely different beast than the folks working in model
| development?
| tpdly wrote:
| Yes, surely a sarcastic reductio ad absurdum of what was was
| said will inspire dialogue. I think the GP's point is that
| their investing in new distribution channels could mean ROI
| in models has diminished significantly. Incidentally, I
| disagree with GP that's what this means-- this is another
| investment in brand awareness, AND data for multi-
| modal/audio. They might have gotten to 1080p for text chat
| but definitely not for voice chat.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _thing tells me all these bells and whistles around gpt are
| signs that scaling laws have plateaued, otherwise OpenAI et al.
| would focus more on improving model quality._
|
| o1-pro is that model. Expensive and slow, but significantly
| better at many tasks that involve CoT reasoning.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I don't get this. Define focus and how is just improving model
| quality gonna allow OpenAI to survive, they need a mix of
| commercialization and model improvement. No $$, no gpus, no
| researchers, no improvements
| ben_w wrote:
| My guess is that the model got good enough to make its own
| bells and whistles -- even the original 3.5 was good enough to
| make its own initial chat web UI.
|
| I know it was that good, because I got it to do that for me...
| and then the UI kept getting better and the expensive models
| became the free default option and I stopped caring.
| paxys wrote:
| They are going to collect so much voice training data from this.
| nirvanatikku wrote:
| telephony* voice data
|
| [*] limited bandwidth (8 kHz), providing a valuable opportunity
| to enhance and specialize models for telephony applications,
| ensuring better performance and user experience even with low-
| fidelity audio inputs.
| lxgr wrote:
| I mean, nothing prevents them from running their existing
| data through a "noisy POTS" filter in A/B tests to see how
| that impacts customer satisfaction.
|
| But being able to blame the user's phone line probably goes a
| long way to avoiding unhappiness due to testing :)
| nirvanatikku wrote:
| While true... real world wins?
| layer8 wrote:
| How does that work, without a transcript of what the voices are
| supposed to be saying?
| paxys wrote:
| Humans can label the data
| daveguy wrote:
| <my recent call>
|
| chatGPT: ~ This may be recorded...
|
| chatGPT: ~ You agree to openai terms and conditions...
|
| Me: What's the square root of two?
|
| chatGPT: What number do you want to know the square root of?
|
| Me: Two
|
| chatGPT: The square root of ten is approximately 3.1...
|
| <click>
|
| If they wanted to show how very non-understanding and un-
| intelligent chatGPT is, they are doing a great job. So much
| quicker to see in a voice interaction than through online query
| submissions.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| interesting, it worked for me first try. maybe you just have
| difficult to understand english or poor connection
| daveguy wrote:
| Never had a problem with either before (home cell), but sure.
| gosub100 wrote:
| Bet they wouldn't make that mistake if it was inputting credit
| card numbers
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| So not the best choice for Phone-a-Friend? I was hoping to
| become a millionaire.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Got to be a nice coincidence ChatGPT is 7 letters.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| Finally, someone I can call if I get arrested
| franze wrote:
| as a reminder, I coded gpt@franzai.com some time ago (see also
| https://gpt.franzai.com/ )
|
| it does the same as the chatgpt whatsapp chat, but well you can
| forward images to it, it can send your reminder emails in the
| future and can manage todos for you (some kind of memory)
|
| if it would have gotten more traction i would have extended it
| that you can also forward emails to it and it responds to the
| original email as your assistant
|
| (and hey, if someone from openAi is reading this, feel free to
| offer me a position as a product manager)
| korkybuchek wrote:
| Powered by Twilio...nice!
| Sean-Der wrote:
| Yep! Twilio is providing the SIP Trunking. We are running our
| own SIP servers though.
| 4ad wrote:
| I can't find any information about how to start a new
| conversation as opposed to continuing an existing one. I asked
| the service itself and it doesn't know. In fact it doesn't even
| know it's behind a phone number.
| nsluss wrote:
| I feel like everyone who has used a lot of AI tools has become
| accustomed to the LLM yap, but hearing it over TTS is much more
| annoying than when it's text you can skim through.
| bryant wrote:
| It's much, much better than TTS you might be familiar with.
| Give it a call.
| nsluss wrote:
| I did and should have given credit above for the voice, it's
| very good. I meant to comment on the verbosity of what was
| being said, not the quality of the TTS itself.
| xd1936 wrote:
| The yap factor is there, but they seem to be prompting this
| phone version to be more brief. I asked a few basic
| informational trivia questions and each response was 3 or four
| sentences. Less than the app or website version imo.
| htrp wrote:
| Collecting training data to the max.
| skrebbel wrote:
| I like this a lot. I don't use AI a lot and I often find it
| annoying, so I don't eg feel the need to install the OpenAI
| mobile app (which I assume exists). Having ChatGPT in my WhatsApp
| (I live in a place where WhatsApp is everywhere) is a nice middle
| ground, lets me occasionally ask it stuff without worrying about
| accounts and projects and models and all that stuff. Cool!
| fzzzy wrote:
| You can also go to the website and use it without logging in.
| skrebbel wrote:
| Hey nice! That's gotta be new-ish too, right? Last I checked
| I had to log in. Thanks!
| virgilp wrote:
| It's funny, I asked it what model it is, and it replies:
|
| > am based on OpenAI's GPT-4 model. Specifically, you are
| interacting with an instance of GPT-4, which is designed to
| understand and generate human-like text based on the prompts it
| receives. My responses are influenced by the extensive training
| on diverse datasets, but I do not have access to real-time data
| or events beyond my knowledge cutoff in January 2022.
|
| But the linked page suggests knowledge cutoff date is Oct 2023.
| It hallucinated an answer even to that....
| sunaookami wrote:
| LLMs do not know about their own capabilites because it's not
| in the training data obviously.
| virgilp wrote:
| I didn't even ask for it. I just asked what version it is.
| The cutoff date was completely volunteered.
| layer8 wrote:
| Or just an incorrect system prompt.
| rickcarlino wrote:
| It would be cool if they added fax support for multimodal
| prompts. I don't know if I'm joking or not.
| Oras wrote:
| Could work for Germany
|
| https://www.therecycler.com/posts/82-of-german-companies-sti...
| tossandthrow wrote:
| > 1-800-ChatGPT works best in quieter environments. Background
| noise may be misinterpreted as prompts.
|
| Is this still an issue? Maybe I have had too high hopes for AI.
| lxgr wrote:
| POTS voice quality is pretty minimal (8 kHz, 8 bit, one
| channel). I wouldn't be surprised if a model would struggle
| more to isolate a speaker there vs. a higher fidelity audio
| channel.
|
| Then again, local noise reduction on modern phones/earbuds
| probably goes a long way to avoiding that problem.
| erulabs wrote:
| Counterpoint: humans word best in quieter environments. If
| we're saying "...what!? It's crazy loud where you are!", you
| can't really expect AI to be much better?
| duckkg5 wrote:
| If you want your own personalized version of this ...
|
| https://www.getmodphone.com
|
| You can get your own number and customize the agent.
| lxgr wrote:
| Very nice! If there were still payphones, that would be a nice
| way to "call the Internet" :) (Assuming it has web access.)
| solfox wrote:
| I can't wait for the home assistant device roll-out. ChatGPT is
| miles beyond Siri and Google.
| Sean-Der wrote:
| You can build it now! https://github.com/openai/openai-
| realtime-embedded-sdk
|
| Here is a demo of it https://youtu.be/14leJ1fg4Pw?t=805
| tigranbs wrote:
| OMG! Try calling from Microsoft Teams :D You will end up with,
| "Thanks for calling Agenta". Did OpenAI outsource and release
| this implementation with some of the company's internal phone
| numbers?
| Sean-Der wrote:
| Not outsourced, I worked on it myself.
|
| This is the old owner of the number. Some carriers are still
| routing it wrong.
| Alupis wrote:
| So you all launched anyway? YOLO embodied entirely I guess...
| 650REDHAIR wrote:
| That is unsurprising and totally wild.
|
| Not very confidence inspiring.
| conductr wrote:
| Because the tech is in a move fast break things phase,
| not business critical to anyone and mostly just a toy
| Alupis wrote:
| > not business critical to anyone and mostly just a toy
|
| Except it's business-critical to OpenAI, who hopes to
| look impressive when you call the number.
|
| Instead, for some unknown percentage of folks that call
| will become confused, or think OpenAI is a bit janky.
| Based on the anecdotes here, it seems the percentage of
| people who will experience this issue is not trivial
| either.
|
| My guess is OpenAI paid a truck load for this 1-800
| number and rushed it into "production" for this product
| launch without waiting for all old routing to be updated.
|
| That's a pretty amateur mistake, honestly.
| tylerrobinson wrote:
| In addition to GOOG-411, this brings back memories of ChaCha
| search via SMS.
|
| You could text a question to CHA-CHA (242-242) and someone would
| google it for you as a human search engine!
| emchammer wrote:
| It would be neat to try if it was available by SMS.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| This is a killer feature for me. In fact, I briefly explored
| building a semi-self hosted version for myself.
|
| My biggest use case for ChatGPT voice mode is when I _need_ or
| _want_ to be handsfree. Think working around the house/yard,
| Driving, Walking around the grocery store, cooking, etc. I find
| that I end up using my iPhone's voice-to-text then simply
| communicate with text mode (in the case of driving, I stop).
| After all, once I have to touch my phone, it's just faster to
| work in text mode.
|
| All of my devices know how to make calls. All of my devices know
| how to make calls from a voice command. All of my devices know
| how to hang up a call. This is really nice.
| lxgr wrote:
| Same here.
|
| How ironic that it's not actually Apple delivering that despite
| being in the perfect position to do so (they have a deal with
| OpenAI for ChatGPT using Siri, have all the contextual
| knowledge they could ever need etc.) - my iOS 18.2 Siri +
| ChatGPT experience has been extremely disappointing so far: It
| seems to completely forget all context between questions,
| ignores me for follow-up questions 80% of the time etc.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| I agree. With the rise of LLMs, Siri is basically useless
| outside of triggers 3 or 4 actions on my phone (timer, call,
| message, play music)
| paul7986 wrote:
| I nerdishly get angry at Siri and Apple's Not Intelligence
| while driving. ChatGPT iPhone app i can have a whole
| conversation with and get things done... Siri on my iPhone 15
| Pro running 18.2 is so frustratingly still dumb and a one now
| only two trick pony compared to the chatGPT's voice mode.
|
| Im still hoping one of Open AI's 12 day announcements is they
| are creating a AI Phone with Microsoft called GPT and or an
| Phone AI OS.
| raydiak wrote:
| Sure seemed lifelike. I started right in on asking it about the
| nature of consciousness and self awareness, and then pointed out
| that its own behavior matched the majority of the criteria it
| described while referring contextually to previous statements in
| the conversation. Then it turned into a seasoned politician,
| precisely understanding but vaguely answering in handwavey
| directions. Either that behavior is well-tuned, or it's in one
| form or another backed by human workers like Musk's humanoid
| robot theater. If the conversation raises certain flags then you
| escalate it to a human to preserve the illusion? Not asserting,
| just speculating from my brief few minutes poking at it
| ppp999 wrote:
| Thats perfect for jail... Simce ypu cant access the internet nut
| can access the phone.
|
| An e-mail version of this would also be nice.
| layer8 wrote:
| Aren't phone calls very expensive from jail?
| virgilp wrote:
| Interestingly enough, it answers the question "Who is Jonathan
| Zittrain?". An oversight?
| layer8 wrote:
| If you write "Zitrain" with only one "t", it also works in
| regular ChatGPT. The speech processing likely has a similar
| effect of not matching the filter.
| solfox wrote:
| Calling it now: Google will ultimately lose this consumer battle.
| How? By doing what they've always done: building better tech.
| Gemini will be faster/better and it will have more features; but
| they will continue to fail to productize or explain it to
| consumers.
|
| Google's offerings here are still a huge mess. OpenAI is
| _crushing_ them right now at building products that people want,
| and making them accessible.
| vletal wrote:
| Have you been paying attention at all these past few weeks?
| Google is crushing it with releases. Gemini 2.0 is great, Veo2
| is crushing Sora, live video conversation from aistudio... 12
| days of OpenAI turned out to be 12 days of Google.
| elaus wrote:
| > Google is crushing it with releases. Gemini 2.0 is great,
| [...]
|
| Isn't that exactly (part of) what they were saying in the
| comment you replied to?
|
| > [...] building better tech. Gemini will be faster/better
| and it will have more features
| sethhochberg wrote:
| My respectful counterpoint is that most people aren't paying
| attention to tech releases at all, ever, unless they go viral
| like ChatGPT did.
|
| I have very nontechnical coworkers get excited about cool new
| things ChatGPT can do, but I'm not certain any of them even
| know we _have_ Gemini in our Google Workspace.
|
| This would hardly be the first time Google has produced
| innovative technology which eventually fizzles because it
| never captured much mindshare outside of the tech news
| circles
| WillieCubed wrote:
| Google's recent launches have been technically impressive
| (especially Veo 2), but given the company's past track record
| on creating new products, I'm not very bullish that they can
| turn those launches into products with the same excitement
| and sense of direction as OpenAI at least appears to have.
| Google has the benefit of having platforms that span billions
| of devices and people, but with the looming threat of
| antitrust regulation, I'm not so sure they'll have the
| benefit of the last thing for long. Granted, I doubt that
| 1-800-ChatGPT will be a significant source of users for the
| product, but it does signal some of the creativity from the
| company that seems to be escaping Google regularly (see:
| NotebookLM's leads leaving to form their own startup).
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Most people still don't know what OpenAI is
| layer8 wrote:
| > Calling it now
|
| At first I thought you meant that literally. ;)
| gradus_ad wrote:
| Seems gimmicky. An audio wrapper on top of ChatGPT accessible by
| phone... Neither technically impressive nor an improvement to
| user experience. Sorry for the negativity, I'm trying to remain
| AI hyped but it's difficult.
| leshow wrote:
| why are you "trying to remain AI hyped"?
| gradus_ad wrote:
| Because hype is exciting and excitement is the spice of life
| benmanns wrote:
| I think so, but not a bad marketing gimmick. It gives a pretty
| easy way for the general public to interact with ChatGPT on a
| trial basis without signing up or paying for it using a
| somewhat hard to acquire identifier (phone number). I'm curious
| if they're doing anything to avoid abuse from spoofed numbers.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Huge user improvement for me.
|
| I can now ask my phone to call ChatGPT. 100% hands-free. It's
| only a few steps less than using the app, but there's a lot of
| incremental value to not needing to touch my phone.
|
| Concrete example: I'm driving. I ask Siri a simple question,
| but it can't answer it. Previously, if I wanted to use ChatGPT,
| I'd have to stop, pickup my phone, unlock, open the app, get my
| answer, then start driving again. I'd never do that. Now, I can
| just ask Siri to call ChatGPT
| bsimpson wrote:
| On coast to coast flights, there's often not a good way of
| knowing what movies are available until after you've left cell
| coverage. This makes simple research like checking the IMDb score
| challenging.
|
| Alaska Air has a whitelist of messaging services that you can use
| for free during the flight. WhatsApp is on that list.
|
| So if you want to research obscure plane movies on an Alaska
| flight, you can connect to their wifi and message either
| WhatsApp's built-in LLaMA or now ChatGPT.
| Alupis wrote:
| I would expect nothing but hallucinations and nonsense coming
| out of any LLM regarding recently-released movies (aka. the
| ones you often find on flights).
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| In every post about LLMs there is someone to blindly say
| something like this.
|
| When in reality if you ask ChatGPT for 10 good movies from
| this year you will get this.
|
| Anora - Directed by Sean Baker, a compelling drama about the
| life of a sex worker in Coney Island.
|
| Challengers - A provocative tennis drama directed by Luca
| Guadagnino, starring Zendaya.
|
| Dune: Part Two - Denis Villeneuve's continuation of the epic
| science fiction saga.
|
| Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga - An action-packed prequel exploring
| the origins of Furiosa, directed by George Miller.
|
| Inside Out 2 - Pixar's sequel that dives deeper into the
| complexities of human emotions.
|
| Wicked - A musical fantasy adaptation directed by Jon M. Chu
| . The Zone of Interest - A thought-provoking film about
| Auschwitz, directed by Jonathan Glazer.
|
| The Idea of You - A steamy romance starring Anne Hathaway.
|
| Hit Man - A comedy thriller starring Glen Powell.
|
| The Outrun - A powerful drama about a recovering alcoholic,
| starring Saoirse Ronan.
|
| Let me know if you'd like more details about any of these!
|
| Which is a great list.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| These details are already available in the in flight
| entertainment interface
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| This type of response is called moving the goal post.
| When someone responds to one claim, the claim is changed
| to something different which was not part of the original
| argument. This is debating in bad faith.
| glenstein wrote:
| They were responding to a commenter suggesting it would
| produce completely unusable results, the question was
| never about whether the results produced would be
| redundant.
|
| I know that any mention of fallacies, valid or otherwise,
| causes instinctive eye rolls, but in this instance I
| agree with them that this amounts to moving the
| goalposts.
| slg wrote:
| Those descriptions are less detailed than the information
| you will see on basically any streaming interface and yet
| it still manages to not being very good. For example, no
| person who had actually seen Anora would describe it as "a
| compelling drama about the life of a sex worker in Coney
| Island".
| glenstein wrote:
| I haven't seen Anora so I'll give you that one, but you
| cited that as if it was just one of many examples, when
| in fact I think it's the only one, as all the other
| descriptions seem reasonable.
|
| Originally the problem was supposedly that it would
| hallucinate complete and utter gibberish, but now here we
| are quibbling over one example and insisting that maybe
| it's not quite as good as alternative descriptions.
|
| The gap between what was produced and what you're looking
| for is small enough that I think it could be covered with
| some slightly tweaked prompt instructions.
|
| I'm not saying you're wrong but want to note how the
| goalposts keep seeming to shift whenever we talk about
| these capabilities.
| slg wrote:
| I'm not Alupis. I can't and am not trying to speak on
| their behalf. I'm therefore not moving the goalposts they
| established. I'm making my own related point.
|
| That point is that the information provided above about
| these movies is worthless. It does not add any new value
| beyond what would already be available in the streaming
| interface. Several of the descriptions are nothing but
| the genre and one person involved in the making of the
| movie. And yet even with these descriptions being
| incredibly short and vague, they still manage to contain
| at least one misleading summary.
| glenstein wrote:
| I'm aware that you're a different commenter but you are
| addressing yourself to a comment that was in reply to
| them and therefore not necessarily appropriate to measure
| such a comment against entirely new criteria that you
| want to bring into the conversation.
|
| Despite your protestations to the contrary, these
| descriptions seem perfectly fine in that they're accurate
| and meaningful. And it if you want to start getting fast
| and loose with all kinds of new extra criteria and
| requirements for what it's supposed to do, they all seem
| squarely within the reach of the capabilities on offer,
| with some prompt tweaks.
| slg wrote:
| >these descriptions seem perfectly fine in that _they 're
| accurate and meaningful_
|
| The description of Wicked doesn't mention either The
| Wizard of Oz or the Broadway musical. So yes, the
| descriptions don't contain obscene mistakes like calling
| Wicked a courtroom drama. If that is enough for you to
| call these "accurate" while ignoring the vagueness or the
| 1 in 10 failure rate on the Anora description, fine by
| me. But you must have some weird definition of the word
| "meaningful" to apply that to descriptions like the one
| of Wicked. That simply isn't a helpful way to describe
| that movie.
| dartos wrote:
| > I haven't seen Anora so I'll give you that one
|
| It was literally the first movie in that list.
|
| You tried making a counter example and the first part of
| it was already wrong.
|
| That's the point. Not that it _cant_ give good answers,
| but whether it does or not is a crap shoot.
|
| Now to analyze how correct it was we need to verify each
| movie it gave... It'd be faster just to read the movie
| descriptions.
| glenstein wrote:
| You're still trying to imply that the list as a whole is
| as inaccurate as that one particular example.
|
| And I think that's quite obviously not the case, most,
| probably every other example on the list is just fine.
| dartos wrote:
| I'm saying that because of the one incorrect example, I
| can't just assume that the rest are accurate.
|
| I now need to either trust a machine that I know gives
| incorrect information (as demonstrated by the first
| example) or I need to verify each example.
|
| > probably every other example on the list is just fine.
|
| Why don't you check IMDb and let me know?
|
| While you're at it, don't think about how much faster it
| would've been if you just looked up popular recent movies
| on IMDb or rotten tomatoes.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| Great! Now show me a system that can verify that list for
| accuracy as well. Not to be flippant, but this is the
| complaint. You can't approach outputs uncritically. And no
| I don't want it to be as unreliable as a person who also
| forgets how English or basic knowledge works at random
| intervals.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| The system is I'm a movie nerd who knows all the best
| movies of the year and have seen them all.
| conductr wrote:
| Movie reviews are amongst the most subjective things, how
| do you define "verify" and "accuracy"?
| th0ma5 wrote:
| If I run a business, I guess I would have the ability to
| bring a libel suit would be one way?
| JadeNB wrote:
| > Great! Now show me a system that can verify that list
| for accuracy as well. Not to be flippant, but this is the
| complaint. You can't approach outputs uncritically.
|
| In general you can't, but surely it's not _that_ big a
| deal if ChatGPT offers an inaccurate summary of a movie
| you 're about to use to kill time on a flight? I suppose
| it becomes important if, e.g., you're relying on it to
| tell you whether a movie is appropriate for children,
| but, if you're just asking it whether a movie is worth
| watching, that's a question that doesn't have an
| objective, factual answer anyway, so a hallucinated
| answer is probably about as useful as that of a not-
| previously-known reviewer.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| If I invested money into a film, I would want its
| representation in the world to reflect what the movie is
| about at the very least.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > If I invested money into a film, I would want its
| representation in the world to reflect what the movie is
| about at the very least.
|
| Sure, but that's the filmmaker's interest. As someone
| sitting on a plane trying to decide whether to watch a
| movie, I care about my interest, not that of the person
| who made it. I'm not particularly arguing for the use of
| ChatGPT here (I wouldn't use it), just that the risks it
| usually poses are fairly minimal in this case.
| glenstein wrote:
| They were responding to a comment that suggested that
| this was a category where the only thing you would get is
| unintelligible gibberish.
|
| You don't even seem to be disputing the actual results
| here, just gesturing towards a kind of philosophy class
| exercise of whether we can ever "really" verify its
| accuracy. I see Wittgenstein's name increasingly tossed
| around in these parts (a good thing!), so I'll just note
| that one of the reasons he's hailed as one of the great
| philosophers of the 20th century is because he felt these
| puzzles about "really" knowing were frivolous.
|
| I don't think I agree that what's needed here is some new
| and extra process of verification. I think the same usual
| quality control criteria that are already being used are
| good enough in this case.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| Yes, like, how are corporations (like movie productions
| in this example) supposed to control their message?
| bsimpson wrote:
| Here's a comparison of asking ChatGPT and Meta AI about
| actual in-flight movie choices.
|
| I pasted the same initial prompts in both, but Meta AI needed
| more clarification. When ChatGPT found multiple entries with
| similar titles, it gave information about all of them.
|
| https://gist.github.com/appsforartists/004bafe11a9e23a418fd5.
| ..
| slg wrote:
| >[The Campaign] received mixed-to-positive reviews from
| critics. On the Rotten Tomatoes website, it holds a 65%
| approval rating from critics, based on 191 reviews, with an
| audience score of 60%.
|
| The first thing I fact-checked, the Rotten Tomatoes scores
| are actually 66% and 51% respectively[1]. Probably not
| enough of a difference to sway any opinions, but an
| excellent example of the type of inaccuracy that the
| previous comment was referencing.
|
| [1] - https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_campaign
| johnbatch wrote:
| Looks like this is using GPT-4 and has no knowledge after
| January 2022.
|
| ' As of my knowledge cutoff in January 2022, the _last movie_
| I have information on is _" Spider-Man: No Way Home"_, which
| was released in theaters in _December 2021_. It was one of
| the most highly anticipated films of that year, marking a
| major event in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) and the
| Spider-Man franchise. '
| freedomben wrote:
| I've heard that Twitter's (AKA X's) LLM (Grok) is really,
| really good at this sort of thing (in part because it has
| recent access to Twitter's data).
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| You'd be pretty wrong, then. ChatGPT in particular will cite
| its sources via an internet site.
|
| My wife wanted a pair of boots for Christmas that I couldn't
| find in her size. Google was a wasteland of SEO, but ChatGPT
| found 5 sites and was able to tell me current stock levels.
| frakt0x90 wrote:
| I get it's just an example, but are we really this far gone?
| Just watch a random movie and if you don't like it, pick
| another. This is such an extreme micro-optimization of a small
| experience.
| crazygringo wrote:
| You don't often know if a movie is good until you've finished
| it, because it all depends on how the story came together in
| the end.
|
| You can spend 2 hours watching a moving, emotional story that
| teaches you something new about the human condition and the
| choices we make in our lives.
|
| Or you can spend 2 hours that turns out to be full of plot
| holes and inconsistent characters, where nothing makes sense
| in the end and you've utterly wasted your time.
|
| In what universe would you _not_ want to have that
| information before watching? Especially if you 're generally
| a busy person and only get to watch 10-20 movies a year.
|
| I truly don't understand the attitude of "just pick one",
| whether it's for movies or other things. That reviews are
| "micro-optimization". Like, do you just not value your time?
| Do you not care about quality?
|
| It's not like reviews are always right. But one film with 98%
| on Rotten Tomatoes vs. one with 45%... that's a _really_
| strong signal. Why on earth would you choose to ignore that?
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Better bring your tablet or similar device with your choice
| of content. Airplane screen quality is bad and movies are
| edited in weird ways (for being acceptable for all ages and
| cultures on loss of anything else)
| nojs wrote:
| Time for http-over-whatsapp
| feyman_r wrote:
| New achievement unlocked - 'phone a friend' on those who-wants-
| to-be-a-millionaire' shows ;)
| iandanforth wrote:
| I built this with twilio, STT, TTS and some glue a while back.
| Having a phone number to call to chat with GPT-4 was fun, but
| laggy and error prone. I primarily used it in the car for hands
| free discussions. I look forward to giving this new option a try!
| drewnick wrote:
| Reminds me of 1-800-MY-YAHOO. I remember hiking in a national
| park in the 90s and calling in from a pay phone and having my
| email read to me over the phone by a robot. I could record an
| audio response that was sent back as an attachment. Good times!
| nunez wrote:
| Not an AI fan, but damn it if this isn't really fucking cool and
| a great way to build up training data. Great job, OpenAI folks!
| corentin88 wrote:
| OpenAI is diversifying a lot, and I'm not sure that's a good
| thing.
|
| It's great to ship fast. But you need to maintain things as well.
| And that requires even more time and engineers and money in the
| end.
|
| There'll definitely be projects within OpenAI that will be
| shutdown in a few months, just because it hasn't caught and/or
| engineers want to work on something new.
|
| That's how Google worked in the 2000s - shipping new things fast
| - but then there was Reader and now they lost everyone's trust.
| joshdavham wrote:
| > OpenAI is diversifying a lot, and I'm not sure that's a good
| thing.
|
| I'm not sure if I'd use term 'diversifying'. At least not in
| the sense of spreading themselves wider across more projects to
| reduce overall company risk (if that's what you meant).
|
| I think that we're still very early into AI and because we're
| still not sure what kind of applications people will want to
| use in the future, it makes a lot of sense to experiment.
| poopsmithe wrote:
| Flip phone user here. This is amazing!
| justinko wrote:
| Please enable for Cuba for my girlfriend :-(
| freedomben wrote:
| Anyone know (and willing to share) what are they using for PSTN
| integration?
|
| I've been looking into options for our non-profit tech startup
| (Ameelio) and about the best pricing I can find is about 1.35
| cents per minute. It surprises (and saddens) me that it's still
| so expensive. I'm sure at a bigger scale you can negotiate better
| pricing, but based on the quick conversations I've had with
| vendors it doesn't get significantly cheaper.
| superb_dev wrote:
| I've used Skyetel before, they were pretty cheap and the
| service is great!
| zoba wrote:
| My Amish neighbors are allowed to use telephones. I wonder what
| they'll think of this.
| croemer wrote:
| OpenAI says in the FAQs that "[t]he knowledge cutoff for
| 1-800-ChatGPT is Oct 2023". But when I message it on Whatsapp, it
| says cutoff is "January 2022" and that it's using "GPT-4".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-18 23:01 UTC)