7 ms·
Author here, I’ve updated the post. The first draft of this app and blog post took me two hours, but I kept coming back with new ideas and tweaks throughout the
by kvh 4y ago
Author here, I’ve updated the post. The first draft of this app and blog post took me two hours, but I kept coming back with new ideas and tweaks throughout the week. By the end, I’d certainly spent more than two hours (more like 8?), so you’re right, I just failed to update the post. The main point stands — it’s surprisingly good for the amount of effort put in (although unclear how much more juice you could get out of gpt with more effort. Clear diminishing returns)
- xwolfi 4y agoCan we replace a webmaster with 26 chatgpt prompts?
- OOPMan 4y agoI reckon we can replace a shill with less
- devmor 4y agoIt doesn't seem like you've really replaced anyone with this. You spent 8 hours doing the work that you could have paid an SQL analyst to do in much less. Unless you're saying that your time is worth less than you'd pay the analyst?
- jhugo 4y agoThey built a bot which can answer any number of questions, each of which would have needed some analyst time. Given that the analyst rotation was an entire day once every N weeks, and the bot took 1 day to make, this is going to pay for itself after 1 week. This all assumes that the bot doesn't need tweaking for every answer — i.e. it gets at least some answers right without needing modifications to the bot — which appears to be the case based on the examples in the post.
- freejazz 4y agoBut, generally and unless there is a glaringly wrong result, only an analyst is going to know if the bot is right or not... what exactly does that gain you?
- catothedev 4y agoIt gets you a really sophisticated 'auto-complete' feature
- freejazz 4y agoNot really. I'd guess that most people can tell if auto-complete is providing the answer they "wanted".
- kqr 4y agoMaybe it's not a position where it is critical that all answers are 100 % accurate. Maybe getting it right every once in a while is enough to pay for the GPT compute time, but not really for analyst time.
- anentropic 4y agoSeems like the issue would be you'd generally get results that 'look' right but would never know if they were actually right without going through and... analysing them
- kqr 4y agoI'm saying there are applications where you don't have to know! As long as the fraction incorrect is less than 50 % and you have 2:1 odds on the consequences you don't have to know which 50 % are incorrect.
- freejazz 4y agoReally? Then why pay for the thing in the first place. Why keep the data and make the queries if the results don't actually matter? I'm impressed that you have the ability to envision such a possibility, perhaps you can use that ability to come up with something reasonably likely as opposed to "conceptually possible".
- antihipocrat 4y agoI think the idea is that once built it would be a service that could parse a question, then automatically develop and run any query in response. Sounds cool until it produces the wrong results.. then you'll need to hire an analyst to check every query just in case.
- guru4consulting 4y agoIf there are extensive test cases with static dataset, this may help with query modifications (optimize query, fine-tune, etc.) Of course, this may not feasible for new queries as you can't have test script until the query is ready.
- skissane 4y agoPut the requests in a queue. Have the bot generate the response. Then forward the response to a human analyst to double-check. A human can surely double-check a response much faster than they can produce one from scratch. In many professions, it is common to have junior staff members do the grunt work, and then the more senior staff just review their work and either sign off on it, correct it, or send it back to be redone. You could use the same pattern here, replacing the junior staff with an AI, but keeping the senior one.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kqr 4y agoAs if the analyst doesn't get the results wrong! For 1/50 of the price, maybe a few more errors are acceptable, even.
- desert_rue 4y agoWhich errors are you okay with?
- kqr 4y agoThe ones for which I would refer the question to GPT. We are still in control of which questions go to GPT/the intern analyst (less critical ones, where a fraction erroneous are okay) and which go to the resident expert analyst.
- _hcuq 4y agoCouldn’t you have just got ChatGPT to write the post?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mdcox 4y agono one wants to automate themselves out of a job, only other people.
- banku_brougham 4y agoI am trying to automate my job away, but i'm not succeeding.
- blowski 4y agoWe all believe our job is so challenging and has such special requirements that it _can't_ be automated. It requires someone with the kind of experience learned with wisdom over a long time. Blah blah blah.
- foobarbecue 4y agoNot all of us.
- tremon 4y agoExcept for the ones of us who keep automating our jobs so that we can spend our effort on more challenging tasks.
- Hellmitioksldf 4y agoThats actually my strategy; This makes it so that 1. my quality overall becomes better and my bosses always liked that (doing things per hand are more error prone, not on time etc.) 2. I can go on holiday knowing my company doesn't need me desperate 3. I can spend the free time of actually innovating and bringing more value to the company/product The problem is not automating yourself out of a job but not being able to leverage the new gained capacity.