zlacker

>>grader+(OP)
I think this time is the good one. ChatGPT has reached a level where we finally can think of building actually useful products on top of "AI".

Note that nobody is pretending that ChatGPT is "true" intelligence (whatever that means), but i believe the excitement comes from seeing something that could have real application (and so, yes, everybody is going to pretend to have incorporated "AI" in their product for the next 2 years probably). After 50 years of unfulfilled hopes from the AI field, i don't think it's totally unfair to see a bit of (over)hype.

>>bsaul+jb
I really don't understand how engineers are having good experiences with it; a lot of the stuff I've seen it output w.r.t. swe is only correct if you're very generous with your interpretation of it (re: dangerous if you use it as anything more than a casual glance at the tech). W.r.t. anything else it outputs, it's either so generic that I could do it better, outright wrong (e.g. cannot handle something as simple as tic tac toe), or functions as an unreliable source (in cases where I simply don't have the background).

I wish I could derive as much utility as everyone else that's praising it. I mean, it's great fun but it doesn't wow me in the slightest when it comes to augmenting anything beyond my pleasure.

>>rxhern+gd
The fact that i can use this tool as a source of inspiration, or a first opinion on any kind of problem on earth is totally incredible. Now whenever i'm stuck on a problem, chatgpt has become an option.

And this happens in the artistic world as well with the other branch of NN : "mood boards" can now be generated from prompts infinitely.

I don't understand how some engineers still fail to see that a threshold was passed.

>>bsaul+4e
I've literally asked it to generate stories from prompts and, it has, without fail, generated the most generic stories I have ever read. High school me could have generated better with little to no effort (and I don't say that lightly) and I'm not a good writer by any means.

Moreover, it's first opinion on the things I'm good at has been a special kind of awful. It generates sentences that are true on their face but, as a complete idea, are outright wrong. I mean, you're effectively gaslighting yourself by learning these half truths. And as someone with unfortunate lengthy experience in being gaslit as a kid, I can tell you that depending on how much you learn from it, you could end up needing to spend 3x as much time learning what you originally sought to learn (if you're lucky and the only three things you need to do is learn it very poorly, unlearn it and relearn it the right way)

>>rxhern+Kf
My experience was more 50% bullshit 50% fact. I did however explicitly forbid members of my team at work to use its code answers for subjects they weren't already experts in.

However I'm not advocating using its answers directly, but more as a source of inspiration.

Now everybody is aware of the problem of chatGPT not "knowing" the difference between facts vs opinion. It does, however seem a less hard features to add than what they've already built (and MS already pretends its own version is able to correctly provide sources). Future will tell if i'm wrong..