<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mrbombastic</author><text>I think part of the issue is that your mileage will vary greatly depending on what your problem domain and language of choice is. People working with languages and problems chatgpt works well in have a hard time believing the hard fails in other domains and vice versa. I wrote a python script the other day to delete some old xcode devices lower than a certain ios version complete witth options with a just a few back and forths with chatGPT. My knowledge of python is extremely basic and the code just worked out of the box. Then yesterday I asked for the code to tell if a device is lidar enabled in Objective-C and it failed to give me compilable code 4 times in a row until I finally gave up and went back to the docs. The correct answer is one line. I for one am pretty excited about this, things that a lot of people have done before should be easy, leaves more brain space for the tough stuff.</text><parent_chain><item><author>dorkwood</author><text>I feel vindicated reading this. Yesterday in a separate thread I claimed that it was wrong on 80% of the coding problems I gave it, and received the response from multiple readers that I was probably phrasing my questions poorly.&lt;p&gt;I started to believe them, too. Unfortunately, my brain is structured in such a way that a unanimous verdict from a few strangers is enough to make me think I’m probably the one who’s wrong. I need to make note of these events as a way to remind myself that this isn’t always the case.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>GPT-4 performs significantly worse on coding problems not in its training data</title><url>https://twitter.com/cHHillee/status/1635790330854526981</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>anonytrary</author><text>Vindicated and excited. Gradient descent is likely not enough. I love it when we get closer to something but are still missing the answer. I would be very happy if &amp;quot;add more parameters and compute&amp;quot; isn&amp;#x27;t enough to get us to AGI. It means you need talent to get there, and money alone will not suffice. Bad news for OpenAI and other big firms, good news for science and the curious.&lt;p&gt;I imagine physicists got very excited with things like the ultraviolet catastrophe, and the irreconcilable nature of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It&amp;#x27;s these mysteries that keep the world exciting.</text><parent_chain><item><author>dorkwood</author><text>I feel vindicated reading this. Yesterday in a separate thread I claimed that it was wrong on 80% of the coding problems I gave it, and received the response from multiple readers that I was probably phrasing my questions poorly.&lt;p&gt;I started to believe them, too. Unfortunately, my brain is structured in such a way that a unanimous verdict from a few strangers is enough to make me think I’m probably the one who’s wrong. I need to make note of these events as a way to remind myself that this isn’t always the case.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>GPT-4 performs significantly worse on coding problems not in its training data</title><url>https://twitter.com/cHHillee/status/1635790330854526981</url></story>