5 ms·

Yes. If someone gives an example of it not working, and you reply "but that example worked for me" then you're cherry picking when it works. Just because it w

Yes. If someone gives an example of it not working, and you reply "but that example worked for me" then you're cherry picking when it works. Just because it worked for you does not mean it works for other people. If I ask ChatGPT a question and it gives me a wrong answer, ChatGPT is the fucking problem.

simianwords 1y ago
The poster didn't use "thinking" model. That was my original challenge!! Why don't you try the original prompt using thinking model and see if I'm cherry picking?
- OnlineGladiator 1y ago
  Every time I use ChatGPT I become incredibly frustrated with how fucking awful it is. I've used it more than enough, time and time again (just try the new model, bro!), to know that I fucking hate it. If it works for you, cool. I think it's dogshit.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    Share your examples so that it can be useful to everyone
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    Objectively he didn't cherry pick. He responded to the person and it got it right when he used the "thinking" model WHICH he did specify in his original comment. Why don't you stick to the topic rather than just declaring it's utter dog shit. Nobody cares about your "opinion" and everyone is trying to converge on a general ground truth no matter how fuzzy it is.
    - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
      All anybody is doing here is sharing their opinion unless you're quoting benchmarks. My opinion is just as useless as yours, it's just some find mine more interesting and some find yours more interesting. How do you expect to find a ground truth from a non-deterministic system using anecdata?
      - glenstein 1y ago
        This isn't a people having different opinions thing, this is you overlooking specific caveats and talking past comments that you're not understanding. They weren't cherry picking, and they made specific qualifications about the circumstances where it behaves as expected, and your replies keep losing track of those details.
        OnlineGladiator 1y ago
        And I think you're completely missing the point. And you say this comment thread is a waste and yet you keep replying. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Do you think repeating yourself for a fifth time is going to achieve something?
        glenstein 1y ago
        The difference is I can name specific things that you are in fact demonstrably ignoring, and already did name them. You're saying you just have a different opinion, in an attempt to mirror the form of my criticism, but you can't articulate a comparable distinction and you're not engaging with the distinction I'm putting forward.
        OnlineGladiator 1y ago
        So your goal here is to say the same thing over and over again and hope I eventually give the affirmation you so desperately need? You've already declared that you're right multiple times. Nobody cares but you. https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ You might want to develop a sense of humor. You'll enjoy life more.
        glenstein 1y ago
        My goal is to invite you to think critically about the specific caveats in the comment you are replying to instead of ignoring those caveats. They said that generally speaking using thinking mode on non niche topics they can get reliable answers, and invited anyone who disagreed with it to offer examples where it fails to perform as expected, a constructive structure for counter examples in case anyone disagreed. You basically ignored all of those specifics, and spuriously accused them of cherry picking when they weren't, and now you don't want to take responsibility for your own words and are using this conversation as a workshopping session for character attacks in hopes that you can make the conversation about something else.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - glenstein 1y ago
    They just spent like six comments imploring you to understand that they were making a specific point: generally reliable on non-niche topics using thinking mode. And that nuance bounced off of you every single time as you keep repeating it's not perfect, dismiss those qualifications as cherry picking and repeat personal anecdotes. I'm sorry but this is a lazy and unresponsive string of comments that's degrading the discussion.
    - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
      The neat thing about HN is we can all talk about stupid shit and disagree about what matters. People keep upvoting me, so I guess my thoughts aren't unpopular and people think it's adding to the discussion. I agree this is a stupid comment thread, we just disagree about why.
      - glenstein 1y ago
        Again, they were making a specific argument with specific qualifications and you weren't addressing their point as stated. And your objections such as they are would be accounted for if you were reading carefully. You seem more to be completely missing the point than expressing a disagreement so I don't agree with your premise.

simianwords 1y ago

The poster didn't use "thinking" model. That was my original challenge!! Why don't you try the original prompt using thinking model and see if I'm cherry picking?

OnlineGladiator 1y ago
Every time I use ChatGPT I become incredibly frustrated with how fucking awful it is. I've used it more than enough, time and time again (just try the new model, bro!), to know that I fucking hate it. If it works for you, cool. I think it's dogshit.
- simianwords 1y ago
  Share your examples so that it can be useful to everyone
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Objectively he didn't cherry pick. He responded to the person and it got it right when he used the "thinking" model WHICH he did specify in his original comment. Why don't you stick to the topic rather than just declaring it's utter dog shit. Nobody cares about your "opinion" and everyone is trying to converge on a general ground truth no matter how fuzzy it is.
  - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
    All anybody is doing here is sharing their opinion unless you're quoting benchmarks. My opinion is just as useless as yours, it's just some find mine more interesting and some find yours more interesting. How do you expect to find a ground truth from a non-deterministic system using anecdata?
    - glenstein 1y ago
      This isn't a people having different opinions thing, this is you overlooking specific caveats and talking past comments that you're not understanding. They weren't cherry picking, and they made specific qualifications about the circumstances where it behaves as expected, and your replies keep losing track of those details.
      - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
        And I think you're completely missing the point. And you say this comment thread is a waste and yet you keep replying. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Do you think repeating yourself for a fifth time is going to achieve something?
        glenstein 1y ago
        The difference is I can name specific things that you are in fact demonstrably ignoring, and already did name them. You're saying you just have a different opinion, in an attempt to mirror the form of my criticism, but you can't articulate a comparable distinction and you're not engaging with the distinction I'm putting forward.
        OnlineGladiator 1y ago
        So your goal here is to say the same thing over and over again and hope I eventually give the affirmation you so desperately need? You've already declared that you're right multiple times. Nobody cares but you. https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ You might want to develop a sense of humor. You'll enjoy life more.
        glenstein 1y ago
        My goal is to invite you to think critically about the specific caveats in the comment you are replying to instead of ignoring those caveats. They said that generally speaking using thinking mode on non niche topics they can get reliable answers, and invited anyone who disagreed with it to offer examples where it fails to perform as expected, a constructive structure for counter examples in case anyone disagreed. You basically ignored all of those specifics, and spuriously accused them of cherry picking when they weren't, and now you don't want to take responsibility for your own words and are using this conversation as a workshopping session for character attacks in hopes that you can make the conversation about something else.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- glenstein 1y ago
  They just spent like six comments imploring you to understand that they were making a specific point: generally reliable on non-niche topics using thinking mode. And that nuance bounced off of you every single time as you keep repeating it's not perfect, dismiss those qualifications as cherry picking and repeat personal anecdotes. I'm sorry but this is a lazy and unresponsive string of comments that's degrading the discussion.
  - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
    The neat thing about HN is we can all talk about stupid shit and disagree about what matters. People keep upvoting me, so I guess my thoughts aren't unpopular and people think it's adding to the discussion. I agree this is a stupid comment thread, we just disagree about why.
    - glenstein 1y ago
      Again, they were making a specific argument with specific qualifications and you weren't addressing their point as stated. And your objections such as they are would be accounted for if you were reading carefully. You seem more to be completely missing the point than expressing a disagreement so I don't agree with your premise.