zlacker

I agree with the under current what chatGPT does well is making a good first draft of a text which is intended to be mostly neutral.

It is to communication what calculators are to mathematics.

>>psychp+(OP)
ChatGPT can also change its style, e.g. "Make the following text more interesting".

>>davidk+o4
I remember our first computer at school.

We spent HOURS making it says poop and butt trying to get it to use outright profanity using it's text-to-speech.

I'm not sure if we'd be happier or not being able to get it to make up stories for us.

I guess everyone has a computer or 5 at home now if you include smartphones and tablets. So it won't be as novel but perhaps it'll be less fun as it preempts the basics of making your own fun.

>>psychp+(OP)
It's really good at conveying information and summarizing the most prominent points of view on a topic. If your goal is just to get a quick, fact-based overview without any color or fluff, I think it already tops what the vast majority of humans can do.

I'm finding myself reaching for it instead of Google or Wikipedia for a lot of random questions, which is pretty damn impressive. It's not good at everything, but I'm rather blown away by how strong it is in the 'short informative essay' niche.

>>danena+3h
I used it as a consultant on a development project to help me organize some of the milestones and design goals in some documentation.

It wasn't that I didn't know the stuff, I do, but more helpful with quickly organizing and presenting information in a clean and well-written way. I did have to go through and re-write parts of it specific to our domain.. but it saved me many hours of work doing tedious organization of data.

I also tested it with helping create some SOP's for a new position in our very small company, even breaking down the expected tasks into daily schedules.

It's not that it's perfect, but it generates a bit of a boiler-plate starting point for me which then I can work with from there.

>>danena+3h
This. I keep going back to Chat-GPT instead of Google or Wikipedia for exactly the same reasons.

It allows you to explore topics that are well understood, in a way that fits your own understanding and pace. It's like somebody writing a great mini-tutorial on topics you're interested in, in a pace and abstraction that suits you.

Examples for me are concepts of mathematics or computer science that I would like to freshen up on. Things you could also ask a colleague over lunch, or find eventually via searching Google/Youtube/Wikipedia etc. Just much faster and more convenient.

>>psychp+(OP)
Thats a great analogy. I like to think of it as setting up the scaffolding either on the code front or writing front.

Its well structured, clear and concise but lacks high level capability of a human or human style attributes.

>>simmsc+wt
I've found it way too easy to confuse.

Often I have a specific question like how does X relate to Y. And usually the answer given is total nonsense.

>>danena+3h
"quick, fact-based overview"

I'd argue with "fact-based". It frequently makes up facts (and even sources!) as it generates text. Also you should consider the possibility that "the facts" it generates can easily be a part of a tabloid article or a post on some "Moon landing was fake / flat earth" blog.

>>psychp+(OP)
Calculators are always correct.

>>random+ng2
I don't think you even really believe that yourself.

https://youtu.be/7LKy3lrkTRA

>>psychp+jU5
The goal of HN is not “win argument” but curious debate. You know what I meant.

>>random+L96
What was "curious debate" about your terse and wholly incorrect quip?

For the purposes of my education and socialisation to HN.

>>psychp+ys6
Previous poster said that GPT is to writing what calculators are to math. That's an interesting point, is this an analogy we can reason with?

My terse response was "no, because calculators are correct all the time whereas GPT is incorrect a lot of time". So, that reasoning can't be used. Need a different one.

So we conclude, no that's not a good analogy.

>>random+SR7
So you're ignoring proof that calculators aren't correct all the time(infact given most numbers are irrational calculators are always mostly wrong and imprecise). And stating your incorrect view as fact.

That's what you mean by curious debate? Bizarre!

P.s. this is why it's a good analogy you've learnt something about calculators from thinking about the analogy as well as chatGPT

>>psychp+V88
The existence of irrational numbers is in no way analogous to saying “the king of England is George V” and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

My general approach to discussion is to assume the most generous interpretation of a post.

>>random+3wb
Just seems like you're ignoring that calculators are only very rarely correct.

But you do you.