Re:ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
by danielbln on Friday February 03, 2023 @03:05PM
(#34647001)
Are you assuming occasional non-factual output is going to be an issue in the future?
Re:ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
by rqtwteye on Friday February 03, 2023 @03:22PM
(#34647198)
You certainly have to validate the output but I am pretty sure not too far in the future AI will be able to do a better job than humans.
Re:ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
by worik on Friday February 03, 2023 @05:08PM
(#34648426)
> So what happens if you now trust it to write firmware for some difficult old timey hardware that nobody understands anymore.
How well would anyone do?
Would you trust me?
Re:ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
by fnordpiglet on Friday February 03, 2023 @05:57PM
(#34649003)
You should see who they hire to write firmware. I wouldn’t trust them with my cable box.
Re:ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
by worik on Friday February 03, 2023 @06:40PM
(#34649455)
Exactly
Hire me
Re:ChatGPT: The Slickest Con Artist of All Time
by fnordpiglet on Friday February 03, 2023 @06:00PM
(#34649032)
By trying to run it usually. It is sometimes wrong, and I amend things. But I’ve had more occasions where I thought I was right and it was wrong and after a long debugging I realized I had failed to grok some edge in the language and it was indeed correct and I learned something new.
But I would suggest not using a LLM to make nuclear reactor control system code, just like Java.
How do you know it was correct? Because you checked it’s entire output manually and determined it probably wasn’t too wrong?
So what happens if you now trust it to write firmware for some difficult old timey hardware that nobody understands anymore. It seems correct. But then it actually was just making it up and the coolant system of the power plant breaks and kills 20,000 people.