The author makes it clear in the associated discussion that he doesn't immediately assume the suggestions are bad based on their source:
> I take the time to understand and consider each suggestion, not rejecting anything out of hand, and share them with my team members (of which there are 17).
The issue is the time it takes to explain _why_ these are bad ideas to non-technical (and skeptical) colleagues.
That sounds to me less of an issue with ChatGPT, and more with having colleagues that don't understand how to engage in reasonable discussion or evaluate information correctly.
ChatGPT is absolutely a symptom here of the underlying problem. Frankly I think it's possible that OP is being too solicitous with these requests. Why does this other team think OP needs a constant input of new ideas? Why do they feel comfortable repeatedly second guessing OP in OP's are of expertise? It sounds like the planning process is totally out of whack. If they were clipping ideas out of a magazine and asking OP to do them it could be just as bad.
And the question was how to get the their coworkers to stop giving copy/pasted ChatGPT technical answers from prompts written by nontechnical people, not how ChatGPT can do a better job.
Good point. Maybe they can invite a discussion where the suggester walks through ChatGPT steps explaining how it is done? Hopefully people aren't so flippant they hammer their keyboard and hit send email. If that's the case, then maybe they need an ego check.
I think my default response would be (regardless of the ChatGPT instructions):
"I looked it over and it doesn't actually work. ChatGPT is good for many high level things but when the specifics get technical, is struggles and invents solutions that don't exist; like a bloom filter. Ask ChaGPT what a bloom filter is."
Sure it's not the tool if you completely ignore 80% of the story. It's cheaper to ban a tool than "hire people who can critically think", as if I ever believed people could intentionally detect that.
The issue here is that the artists are confident that the suggestions (which they don't themselves understand) are good because they came from ChatGPT.
I would argue that if you cannot answer questions on something generated before suggesting it or handing it off, you absolutely should not be pushing for it. Do the research necessary to feel fully confident on a hand-off.
Hell, if something doesn't make sense, ask it again for clarity. It does a reasonable job at that, but again, before you hand off a solution, make darn sure you understand it, because chances are high, whoever pitches a solution that sounds usable, is going to break ground and work it.
Honestly had the same experience with a junior developer yolo-ing some changes into a PR before even running it themselves to check that it works. It's just a waste of everyone's time and a lack of respect. That's what needs to be conveyed to the artist colleagues.
They aren't good. Also, diffusion models work well for the artists to spit out pixels. The artists assume the LLM generated code is the same quality and that the OP is a fool who won't do what they ask due to lack of skill or stubbornness.
It's messing up the dynamic where creatives come up with blue sky stuff and developers come to a compromise on a possible solution. Now you have this AI model hallucinating plausible, but fake solutions.
The model says what they want to hear because it is a chicken, not a pig in this scenario.
the issue is it takes effort to determine if the idea is good or finding subtle errors in generated code, generating it with GPT requires almost no effort from the person who then offloads it
My gut reaction is no, but let me think out loud using ad absurdum to see if there is merit.
A five year old asks chatGPT how to achieve world peace. The response is not only possible but easily affordable on a short timeline. Do I care that a 5 year old got it from ChatGPT? I guess not. A part of me would want all the adults on the planet to stop and acknowledge how tragically ineffectual they are, but as far as whether the source matters...nope.
Good point. Thanks for letting me think through it.
Yeah, but it appears this guy can't convince the suggestion givers because they lack the expertise to evaluate their suggestions. For instance, they could be asking ChatGPT how to do something in code and then sending that.
Is there a specific paper or something you can point me to? Or are you talking about like llama.cpp? Because I thought that referred to the fact that it was originally one c++ file named llama.cpp?
Imagine being an actual woman and having to deal with this bullshit all the fucking time. I have no idea how the hell they do it. Must be low-level torture.
> I've asked out wait staff at restaurants, bar tenders, even co-workers with some success based on little more than them being nice or attractive
These people generally aren’t being nice to you because they reciprocate, they’re being nice because it’s their job. Asking them out while they’re working is awkward for everyone involved. Worse, it can make them feel pressured to let you down gently or give you the false impression that they’re interested if only they weren’t currently in a relationship.
> all women have to do is ignore or deny the advance, how is that "dealing with bullshit"?
Most men are decent, but plenty of men are aggressive, scary, or make women very uncomfortable.
If you ask someone out respectfully, of course that's fine. If you're not taking no for an answer, being hostile, or making someone feel very uncomfortable/unsafe, then you're not doing the right thing.
Actually, even the polite men are being creepy. Hitting on someone you barely know, in a business environment, is just creepy cringe.
Yeah, sure, you're being a "gentleman" by backing down when she inevitably rejects such an inappropriate advance, but after the hundredth insta-suitor, it gets old and even stressful and anxiety inducing.
I totally understand, but I don't really know the answer. Men who are more aggressive (in an appropriate or inappropriate manner) tend to be more successful.
So, as a man, your options are to:
1. Ask fewer women out so that you are more respectful. This likely means you'll have less success dating.
2. Ask more women out, even in environments that might be uncomfortable, e.g. a server, co-worker, etc. They're going to have more success dating.
Again, I totally understand this sucks for women, but men don't have great options here either.
The answer is to learn to read the signals people give off when they're interested. The "more aggressive" men just aren't reading the signals. So they ask and get shot down. And they get a lower quality of relationship in the rare cases of success since they're merely playing the odds.
Get to know someone before asking them out. Find out what they're like. Know what you're like, and what kinds of people you're compatible with. Your 20s and in some cases even 30s are your opportunity to learn.
It depends on context really. Which as someone on the spectrum (childhood diagnosis, not adult) has always presented its challenges and its why I personally have erred on the side of caution. I would not personally approach a woman for instance in an instance in which she is engaged in her employment activities and im interacting as a customer/vendor/partner whatever. However it's not unfeasible that it is my feelings on the matter that are abnormal so perhaps i've been going about it all wrong.
I'd simply never want to make somebody feel uncomfortable because I choose a time that is not appropriate for such interactions. And for me, that pretty much means that unless we are sharing personal time together outside of such a relationship, then I don't engage in such activities.
Thanks for responding. I can certainly relate to feeling pressure not to upset other people, and even think that it's a healthy impulse to have, up to a point. (Certainly it's unhealthy to never feel it.) I don't think your feelings are abnormal -- to me they seem very much in agreement with current norms, in the US at least. But I would like you to think about whether the current socially decided notion of "what's appropriate" is as balanced and as good for everyone as it could be.
Social norms like this can and do change over time, and it's my opinion that this (specifically, that asking people out in a work environment is always or nearly always inappropriate) is one that should -- because I think there's an alternative set of norms that leaves essentially everyone better off. Specifically I think that if it was understood by everyone that a person asking another person out (in any context, including at work) is responsible for dealing with rejection like an adult and not continuing to pester the person, then (absent any power difference that might imply a quid pro quo situation), there would be no reason to forbid it. Most people would still hesitate to do it (asking someone out can result in rejection, rejection is embarrassing), but the kind of scenario described by Martinussen in https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=akoboldfrying#389248..., where an employee fears for their job if they don't pander to an entitled customer, won't occur.
> But I would like you to think about whether the current socially decided notion of "what's appropriate" is as balanced and as good for everyone as it could be.
I never do well with these really I think because I often have both extreme, yet very conflicting positions on almost everything. But sure.
> I think that if it was understood by everyone that a person asking another person out (in any context, including at work) is responsible for dealing with rejection like an adult and not continuing to pester the person, then (absent any power difference that might imply a quid pro quo situation), there would be no reason to forbid it.
I would say in an ideal world, realistically, yes. Despite the suggestion my post my have originally given. It was probably too flippant, for which I apologise honestly.
The next time I'm in an internet argument that seems to be escalating, I hope I will remember these last couple of comments of yours, and be as willing to reconsider my own position as you have been.
As a former male server I experienced women hitting on me in ways that I thought only men did and it didn't feel great at all. I'm sure there will be guys out there saying that's a good problem to have, but it really isn't. Especially if you have a wife already.
To describe it succinctly I and many others are a captive audience in these agreements to labor/income. I'm not necessarily attracted to you just because you are in my vicinity.
Well you can argue against procreation of human race if you want but long-term this only means no procreation of your culture and not of the human race as a whole. Other cultures, more eager to spread will take it's place eventually.
I didn’t argue against it in general, just for the case of people who pester service staff in pursuit of sexual gratification. I don’t think that’s a cultural issue, so much as one of individual boorishness.
Seeing "boorishness" and "pursuit of sexual gratification" as inherently bad things is indeed a cultural phenomenon. There are cultures that explicitly reward one or both of these.
The problem is the combination of the two, although the former is discouraged most everywhere. Being a pest is not a matter of culture, but an individual choice.
I'll +1 this, in spite of the overwhelming negative reception. Sometimes the vibe is right. Usually, people just want to get on with their lives and not be propositioned; but sometimes the chemistry is there -- and what is a person to do?
> I think you are being sarcastic, at least I hope so, otherwise, unless you are 100% abstinent, how do you expect couples to form and human to procreate? If you really are this uninformed, the way it works 99% of the time, men ask out women they are attracted to, sometimes a woman just being nice to a man is enough for him to see an "opening" and ask her out.
>I've asked out wait staff at restaurants, bar tenders, even co-workers with some success based on little more than them being nice or attractive, this is how our species reproduces, if its "bullshit" for anyone its men getting the short end of the stick, all women have to do is ignore or deny the advance, how is that "dealing with bullshit"?
You make a good point. You have personally asked out women based off them being nice or attractive, therefore it cannot be a source of irritation. It cannot have been unpleasant if kylebenzel does it
Imagine if women behaved this way toward men. Before making the obvious snarky remarks, step back and think about how unpleasant that would be, as well as distracting from doing actual work, degrading (they aren't taking you seriously as a professional, just as a f-k), etc.
I'm sorry, what world do you live in? As a server, women were extremely crass and inappropriate with me all of the time and it wasn't nice at all for me. I am also not the type to be that kind of guy so it was very jarring for me to experience.
San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Miami, Austin. Pick one I live there. Being in these environments really makes you wonder what sort of intellectual and ultimately evolutionary advancements have we made by constantly just volleying a ball over a net for so long with decisions that are made without our reach, oversight and generally care.
Also, please do better with your comments in the future. You didn't even follow your smarmy link to see if something appropriate was shown in the results =[
There is a ton of arrogance everywhere on this subject. Anyone who doesn't see how complicated and nuanced and difficult figuring out what the hell is going on here really needs to sit down and think a little more carefully. There's absolutely no room for out-of-hand dismissal. We are all babes in the woods right now. We need each other, like always.
I'm a very tech savvy individual, and as a parent who has spent hours and hours navigating the murk of disparate parental control systems, it is clear to me that what you say is only true if you commit to preventing your child from having access to anything at all.
Worst of all, children have friends!
In other words, you must lock them in a closet and deprive them of access to sunlight itself to accomplish what you say.
Either the children or the adults will need to overcome hurdles to access porn. I believe the parent is suggesting that if we have to pick who faces the hurdles, it should be the children (and their parents) not the adults legally deciding to surf porn.
It absolutely is useful and one of the most significant points in this comment section.
People are applying standards to LLMs that don't exist elsewhere. They don't exist elsewhere because they absolutely can't exist elsewhere.
It's not a technical short-coming of LLMs that they can't produce citations in every instance. Rather, it's a property of information, representation, and knowledge itself. Much of it floats far above the otherwise load bearing pillars of citations.
People contend with this constantly in every arena of life, and we have come up with very elaborate ways to offset the difficulties caused by it.
And we get along very well despite it all.
I'll also leave you with this: citations are just pointers to more sources of information. Not some ground truth. It's just another tranche that requires evaluations.
Lastly, your comment is an unfortunate bit of low-level snark and probably would have been better left unsaid.
I didn't say it should provide citations for every statement. We're talking about instances where the model reproduces text verbatim. If it is paraphrasing or creating new text then obviously it doesn't need to cite any more than a human would.
I get the strong impression that even people who have much experience using LLMs have astoundingly little insight into what they are actually witnessing. This is often paired with astoundingly little insight into what's actually going on in their own cognitive processes.
Somehow, it's still not clear to most people that LLMs and even vector databases create knowledge that wasn't in the original data.
In fact, that's most of what they do! Isolated, non-novel direct quotation is the exception, not the rule.
