I asked it to generate me documentation for a handful Bicep definitions and include links to the official Microsoft Docs. It generated about 50% erroneous links, but once I updated my prompt and fed it the "root" of the MS docs I wanted it to use, it was able to correct all the urls.

At the time it _seemed_ like it wasn't just doing a mindless string replace, because different parts of the url changed on most of the erroneous links. I figured it wasn't going out and spidering the link I gave, but it led me to believe maybe there was _some_ form of index that it simply hadn't prioritized prior, but was able to do with the additional context.

These models have probably been trained on a large portion of the Internet.

The training data however can be a few years old.

I have noticed this when trying to get it to generate some code, it was clearly using considerably old versions.

> I have noticed this when trying to get it to generate some code, it was clearly using considerably old versions.

I have noticed the same thing when trying to use junior devs to generate some code, usually correlating with how old the most popular Stack Overflow question on the subject is.

This is how we decided to describe chatgpt’s programming ability the other day. A very fast but somewhat inadequate jr developer. Is amazing really but you also have to ask for the same thing a dozen times and still spend quite a while figuring out what’s wrong with it.

What I have been doing is asking it for code and then asking it to find bugs in that code. The bug finding works relatively well.

Wouldn’t it be wild if it just guessed the URLs correctly, because it had seen so many URLs from Microsoft URLs it was able to correctly predict the form of URLs it hadn’t seen yet?

copy.ai's chat bot can read URLs now

we’ve made the startling discovery that we’re rather predictable

My hypothesis is that we will soon see the emergence of a super-human artificial intelligence, not because of some astounding breakthroughs in our understanding intelligence, but because of irrefutable proof that humans just aren't all that complicated to surpass.

I think this is right.

Setting aside the creativity aspect (ie where do brand new ideas come from), which is a minuscule fraction of human thought, I suspect we are good pattern matching machines with the ability of extrapolation.

I think with sufficient data that computers can understand, this is eminently replicable.

Agreed, artificial intelligence doesn’t need to turn into Skynet to be “super human”, just better than the average 85-90 IQ human.

That's funny, someone must have given these ai bots an iq test by now. I wonder how it did

People used to say “AI wont surpass humans, we’ll meet them in the middle.”

Right. But that tech will be created by humans, somehow.

These misanthropist slogans run up to contradictions so easily.

I don't think it's so contradictory, we have a long history of stumbling into technological advancement. We have a tendency to get ahead of ourselves before we even understand what we're doing.