Re: ChatGPT ???

This is a nice writeup btw, though long:

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-case-against-generative-ai/

Some quotes:


 > Every CEO talking about AI replacing workers is an example of the 
real problem: that most companies are run by people who don’t 
understand or experience the problems they’re solving, don’t do any 
real work, don’t face any real problems, and thus can never be 
trusted to solve them. The Era of the Business Idiot is the result of 
letting management consultants and neoliberal “free market” 
sociopaths take over everything, leaving us with companies run by 
people who don’t know how the companies make money, just that they 
must always make more.


 > This is the true nature of labor that executives fail to comprehend 
at scale: that the things we do are not units of work, but 
extrapolations of experience, emotion, and context that cannot be 
condensed in written meaning. Business Idiots see our labor as the 
result of a smart manager saying “do this,” rather than human 
ingenuity interpreting both a request and the shit the manager didn’t 
say.
 > What does a CEO do? Uhhh, um, well, a Harvard study says they spend 
25% of their time on “people and relationships,” 25% on 
“functional and business unit reviews,” 16% on “organization and 
culture,” and 21% on “strategy,” with a few percent here and 
there for things like “professional development.”
 > That’s who runs the vast majority of companies: people that 
describe their work predominantly as “looking at stuff,” “talking 
to people” and “thinking about what we do next.” The most 
highly-paid jobs in the world are impossible to describe, their labor 
described in a mish-mash of LinkedInspiraton, yet everybody else’s 
labor is an output that can be automated.


P.


W dniu wto, 30 wrz 2025 o 03:32:54 +00:00:00 użytkownik Przemysław 
Kamiński (as cgenie at pm dot me) <[email protected]> napisał:
> 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




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