this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
1035 points (97.6% liked)

People Twitter

5258 readers
953 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

chatgpt has been really good for teaching me code. As long as I write the code myself and just ask for clarity or best practices i haven't had any bad hallucinations.

For example I wanted to change a character in an array with another one but it would give some error about data types that were way out of my league. Anyways apparently I needed to run list(string) first even though string[5] will return the character.

However that's in python which I assume is well understood due to the ton of stackoverflow questions and alternative docs. I did ask it to do something in Google docs scripting something once and it had no idea what was going on and just hoped it worked. Fair enough, I also had no idea what was going on.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] callcc@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

It's usually good for ecosystems with good and loads of docs. Whenever docs are scarce the results become shitty. To me it's mostly a more targeted search engine without the crap (for now)

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

They're trying not to lose money on the developments

[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

bold of u to assume there are docs

[–] couch1potato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

Or docs are far too extensive... reading imagemagick docs is like reading through some old tech wizard's personal diary.. "i was inspired to shape this spell like this because of such and such...." like, bro.. come on, I just want the command, the args, and some examples... 🤷‍♂️

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

in my use case, the hallucinations are a good thing. I write fiction, in a fictional setting that will probably never actually become a book. If i like what gpt makes up, I might keep it.

Usually, I'll have a conversation going into detail about a subject, this is me explaining the subject to gpt, then having gpt summarize everything it learned about the subject. I then plug that summary into my wiki of lore that nobody will ever see. Then move on to the next subject. Also gpt can identify potential connections between subjects that I didn't think about, and wouldn't have if it didn't hallucinate them.

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Big businesses know, they even ask people like me to add extra measures in place. I like to call it the concorde effect. Youre trying to make a plane that can shove air out of the way faster than it wants to move, and this takes an enormous amount of energy that isn't worth the time save, or the cost. Even if you have higher airspeed when it works, if your plane doesn't make it to destination it isn't "faster".

We hear a lot about the downsides of AI, except that doesn't fit the big corpo narrative and people don't care enough really. If youre just a consumer who has no idea how this really works, the investments companiess make into shoving it everywhere makes it seem like it's not a problem and it looks like there's only AI hype and no party poopers.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Remember when you had to have extremely niche knowledge of "banks" in a microcontroller to be able to use PWM on 2 pins with different frequencies?

Yes, I remember what a pile of shit it was to try and find out why xyz is not working while x and y and z work on their own. GPT usually gets me there after some tries. Not to mention how much faster most of the code is there, from A to Z, with only little to tweak to get it where I want (since I do not want to be hyper specific and/or it gets those details wrong anyway, as would a human without massive context).

[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

What are you talking about? I don’t verify anything that ChatGPT gives me.

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Gippity is pretty good at getting me 90% of the way there.

It usually sets me up with at least all the terms and etc I now know to google, whereas before I wouldnt even know what I am looking for in the first place.

Also not gonna lie, search engines are even worse than gippity for accuracy often.

And Ive had to fight with so many cases of garbage documentation lately that gippity genuinely does the job better, because it has all the random comments from issues and solutions in its data.

Usually once I have my sort of key terms I need to dig into, I can use youtube/google and get more specific information though, and thats the last 10%

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 2 days ago

I usually tell it "using only information found on applicationwebsite.com " that works pretty well at least to get me in the ballpark to find the answer I'm looking for.

[–] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

You have to understand it well enough to know what stuff you can rely on. On the other hand nowadays there are often sources there, so it's easy to check.

[–] Seeders@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

All tools get misused.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Eh I just let it write my bash scripts. A bit of trial and error with ChatGPT beats having to read the ffmpeg or imagemagick docs.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›