Re: ChatGPT ???

As much as every LLM tries to be chatty and look like a human, I find 
it very un-human that it just apologizes on every error and happily 
creates another random answer, like nothing happened.

A normal human would either feel offended and just not talk to you 
anymore, or go get some rest and think of the problem once more, and 
then start a discussion.

I have a feeling that it's related to the big money behind LLMs and 
their commercial nature.

P.

W dniu pon, 29 wrz 2025 o 23:06:08 -04:00:00 użytkownik Michael 
Lenaghan (as michaell at dazzit dot com) <[email protected]> 
napisał:
> > But after being chided by me for offering stupid, handwaving, 
> arguments for its poor exhibit, ChatGPT defended its actions, stating 
> that it was only providing examples of code to show how to do the 
> model. It later admitted to putting in dummy parameters instead of 
> the actual 2003 ISO-226 model coefficients.
> 
> I don’t understand that framing? “Defending” and 
> “admitting” are just more probabilistic word selection based on 
> previous words.
> 
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 8:46 PM David McClain (as dbm at 
> refined-audiometrics dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What I was actually looking for were updates to the ISO-226 model.
>> 
>> But after being chided by me for offering stupid, handwaving, 
>> arguments for its poor exhibit, ChatGPT defended its actions, 
>> stating that it was only providing examples of code to show how to 
>> do the model. It later admitted to putting in dummy parameters 
>> instead of the actual 2003 ISO-226 model coefficients.
>> 
>> So in this instance, ChatGPT behaved very badly. I could care less 
>> about the code. What I wanted to see was an update on the physics 
>> and the numeric parameter values that have been updated, if any.
>> 
>> Turns out there were no updates.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 29, 2025, at 14:40, Alexey Veretennikov (as alexey dot 
>>> veretennikov at protonmail dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I use Claude to ask some questions, look at the code, get some 
>>> ideas. Never use what it produces since usually it is quite bad 
>>> style code, rolling out function which are already implemented in 
>>> standard library and following bad patterns. But its the same as to 
>>> get inspiration from  open source projects - code might vary a lot 
>>> in quality, from brilliant ideas to garbage. I use it to C/C++ code 
>>> and never for Lisp.
>>> 
>>> Copilot Enterprise does pretty good job in guessing what I want to 
>>> write next, and sometimes I auto complete with it boilerplate code 
>>> (loops over iterators etc). It works pretty well for writing unit 
>>> tests with a lot of repeating declarations, after you correct its 
>>> suggestions a couple of times, it starts to be better at following 
>>> the patterns. It is horrible to do anything with math though, but 
>>> could easily type in equations straight from wikipedia in C/C++ 
>>> form in a style following the code in the file. I wouldn't say it 
>>> increased my productivity a lot, but maybe 5-10%.
>>> 
>>> So in general it is useful, but not to the extent community self 
>>> proclaimed leaders want us to believe. I think for example the 
>>> impact of LLVM on the industry was way bigger than any modern AI 
>>> tooling for a tiny fraction of the cost.
>>> Too bad so much resources went as usual wrong way.
>>> 
>>> Saying that, I don't think it would be a bad idea to have copilot 
>>> integration in LW in a chat mode as a tool with ability to easily 
>>> add context(open buffers) to ask questions, like gptel Emacs 
>>> extension does. I even wrote it to LW support as a feature request. 
>>> This tooling is here to stay and all modern IDEs should support it 
>>> (even Emacs does with gptel/copilot.el).
>>> 
>>> BR,
>>> /Alexey
>>> 
>>> On Monday, September 29th, 2025 at 22:21, Eben Bruyns (as eben at 
>>> sdk dot co dot nz) <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I'll see you and raise you!
>>>> 
>>>> I had Claude code just flat out lie to me about running tests and 
>>>> the results. I've also had it refuse to do repetitive tasks, the 
>>>> output was "this is too tedious", it wrote a script that did the 
>>>> job wrong and called it production ready. It's honestly uncanny 
>>>> how much it behaves like an over confident bad junior dev! The 
>>>> number of times you'll see "this is perfect, flawless, ship it" 
>>>> when it doesn't even pass basic smoke tests is unreal.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Eben Bruyns
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 29 Sept 2025 at 16:44, David McClain (as dbm at 
>>>> refined-audiometrics dot com) <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I just had a session with ChatGPT, wherein I caught it outright 
>>>>> fabricating information to me. Not just once, but three times.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  It likes to present examples using Python code. I translated its 
>>>>> Python code to Lisp to double check the answers it gives.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I asked it for a function to convert dBSPL to Phons, and back. 
>>>>> If you don’t know what that is, it isn’t really important for 
>>>>> this discussion. It has to do with Equal-Loudness contours and 
>>>>> the Fletcher-Munson curves for human hearing.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  By definition, the Phons scale equals the dBSPL scale at 1 kHz. 
>>>>> It varies at other frequencies in a nonlinear manner.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  But ChatGPT’s model produces 91 Phon for 40 dBSPL at 1 kHz. It 
>>>>> is off by more than 50 dB !!
>>>>> 
>>>>>  When I told it about the error, it apologized profusely, stating 
>>>>> it knew where the error was. GPT said the error was because it 
>>>>> didn’t take into account the threshold of hearing.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  But that would have produced an error of absolute magnitude less 
>>>>> than 1 dB. So once again, it is lying to me. I told it to stop 
>>>>> giving me handwaving excuses for its errors.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  It apologized again, with another silly handwaving argument, and 
>>>>> produced another answer referring to Python’s iso226 model. I 
>>>>> demanded to see that Python code and it finally gave me a URL 
>>>>> that actually pointed to the source code. That is the final 
>>>>> straight answer.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  It took me an hour to get a straight, correct, answer from 
>>>>> ChatGPT. It willfully misleads. So watch out when using it!!
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I cannot imagine a clueless management class individual actually 
>>>>> running their company on the promise of such flimsy AI. At best, 
>>>>> ChatGPT might serve as an encyclopedia, but should not be trusted 
>>>>> unless you know more about the subject that it does.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>  Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html
>>> 
>> 




_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
[email protected]
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html