[nucleardog]

You see the flaw in this, right?

The people that try the models and find no value will obviously not continue to use something they get no value from.

If you discount anyone that doesn’t use it on a continual basis, then of course all the detractors aren’t as heavy of users as those that do use it regularly.

[ben_w]

Indeed, reminds me of the "beginner's luck" fallacy: all long term gamblers remember winning their first few games. We can't use this to our advantage, because the people who didn't win, didn't become long term gamblers.

I think a better argument would be the size of the set of regular users vs. some grounded guesstimate for how many have tried it.

[ninetyninenine]

Or the losers fallacy. Seems like entrepreneurship is a good example of the losers fallacy. The path to winning is through losing a lot first. So most people never persist long enough to succeed.

I would say for AI deniers it's the losers fallacy. You guys haven't taken the time to thoroughly examine chatGPT4. You just stop at the first hallucination. It's a paradigm shifting AI.

Detractors like you just rely on common tropes like oh "stop anthropomorphizing it" and stuff like that. People who see this stuff as game changing recognize these biases and we still say it's game changing. Nobody is stupid enough to think this thing is even remotely human.

I asked chatGPT to program me a complex GUI in Python about selecting multiple time segments out of an overall interval using sliders. It gave me working python code.

You have realize that this thing has no eyes and it was able to program a visual interface as if it did. I'm not anthropomorphizing anything when I say this, but on some level chatGPT "understands" what you are giving it as a query.

[ben_w]

> Detractors like you

Ah, been a while since someone pigeon-holed me like that. Usually it's the opposite pigeon hole I get stuffed into.

Ironically, that kind of rapid but inaccurate misreading is one of the things that makes LLMs somewhat easier to deal with than a human: with an LLM, I can backtrack, edit my past words, and get a different answer. One cannot generally do that with a human, as it's a rare trait indeed for someone to be able to hear "you misunderstood, not x, y" and actually take that on board. Even on this site, I've been in threads of:

--

>>>>>>> x

>>>>>> y is dumb, you're dumb

>>>>> sorry you misunderstood, I'm not saying y, I'm saying x

>>>> I just told you y is dumb, you're dumb

>>> no, you're still not getting me, I'm not saying y, I'm saying x

>> stfu noob, I'm a professional: y is dumb, you're dumb

> I'd agree y is dumb, but I'm saying x

stop moving the goalposts!

--

(In this case, x was "it seems implausible that the Saudi Public Investment Fund would really last forever, forever is a long time and there's a always going to be a temptation for the people in charge to extract short term value to the detriment of long term potential", and y was (I think from context but I couldn't read their mind) "they're making bad decisions and will go under imminently".

> I asked chatGPT to program me a complex GUI in Python about selecting multiple time segments out of an overall interval using sliders. It gave me working python code.

Cute. I used it to write a web GUI for its own API, so I can have GPT-4 access as PAYG without a monthly subscription: https://github.com/BenWheatley/YetAnotherChatUI

[randomcarbloke]

>I asked chatGPT to program me a complex GUI in Python about selecting multiple time segments out of an overall interval using sliders. It gave me working python code.

Sounds like your problems are rather short-term and low-stakes, I've presented it several questions that it cannot answer and tells me so.

[ninetyninenine]

What do we expect ai to be some kind of god level intelligence. The fact that it even understood the request is a paradigm shifting event.