I have been working on a AI "tutor" for kids (6-10) based on the constraints of - no websites, no apps, no ipad/iphone. But after this demo, I need to rethink my entire approach! Maybe these ideas I am holding on to, are just not relevant.
Just a heads up you have to scroll past two "order now" buttons linking to stripe before reaching the one with the message it's for early adopters only.
Have GPT4o running on the background and have it type out the answers as your interviewer reads aloud the questions. Share your screen and let it find the bugs for you in real time. Never get any facts wrong as you smugly correct your interviewer about the minute details of an obscure AWS Route 53 API.
oh god, of all the amazing problems to solve with this wonderful technology, you surely did pick the most useless. What's this obsession with interviews on HN?
Hired a bunch of people in my career and 1 call was enough with a success ration of 98%
People obsess about interviews because they need to do well to get a job to make money so they won't live on the streets. The whole interview process is a total mess these days. Already filled with ML stuff to reject your application before you even get a chance at an in-person interivew.
People already use AI to punch of their resumes to make themselves look more attractive.
Doing great in a FAANG interview is life changing money for people from the lower and lower-middle classes. It can bring up your entire family. The stakes are high, which means people will use every tool to have an advantage.
Congratulations on your success ratio. If you don't mind me asking, however, what constitutes a "success" in your eyes? I also interviewed and hired / rejected many applicants through my career, but I don't know if we ever discussed our successes as a single quantitative metric. I'm interested to find out what you measured.
I "picked out" this problem to discuss here because I find the process of "approximating someone else's skills" an interesting endeavor without a clear solution. Do you think the current remote interviewing techniques are effective? Regardless of your answer, it looks like it's going to change dramatically. I find that to be interesting I guess :)
Is there anyone else here who watches this and thinks that the teaching-a-human part is just an inefficient and unnecessary middle step?
It gave me the feeling of dragging people along for no real reason and just waiting for them to catch up. I mean, if the AI already knows all of this, and anyone can ask it, then what's the value of people learning it?
I get that this is a fear with AI in general (obsoleting humans). But watching this really crystallizes it somehow.
Sam Altman's intro for GPT-4o was selling all the ways it could help people accomplish tasks. But I could only think, why not just have the AI do the tasks on its own?
Exactly. And, I can't help but wonder if there's some sleight of hand here. I mean, to say AI will merely assist is kind of an ideal way to allay concerns that humans will lose relevance. Delay the panic until it's absolutely obvious where we are.
Someone mentioned that Altman's interviews involve him talking a good bit without providing a lot of useful info. Makes sense when you consider that his role is something of a politician.
Anyway, for now, the assist idea is somewhat plausible, but with each new version it's less so.
I think that's what it is about this video: when you watch someone being taught by AI, it flips the "assist" part on its head. Doesn't make a lot of sense that the AI has to patiently teach people to get them to a place where it can then "assist" them.
Say it with me... GPT-4o doesn't know anything. It uses statistics to generate what is likely to be a match, or to categorize what it sees or hears. When it gets it wrong, it doesn't "know" it's wrong until you tell it. Then it tries to generate a statistically likely correction.
It's really good at this. But it doesn't understand, it doesn't reason. It just picks the next token like it's been trained to do.
The upshot is, unless you already know how and why the generated text is incorrect, you'll be fooled into thinking it's the answer.
There's no need for the condescension, even if you had actually understood the point.
>It uses statistics to generate...
I assume most here understand your rudimentary description of how GPT works.
My point assumes that LLMs and/or some augmented form of the same continue to improve.
If, OTOH, the best we ever do is the current generation of models that hallucinate, require babysitting, and never reach or exceed human capabilities, then my point (and >90% of the discussion around AI's future impact) are non-issues.
On the contrary. Unless some AI armageddon happens, humans will be nurtured by AIs like in the movie Wall-E. Totally dependent by it, but a true utopia.
I don't see this as Gulp, but tier 1 support. Imagine a whole classroom where small groups are self paced (and shuffled as needed) where each table gets a decent AI that can basically help them while a "master teacher" gives the more direct support that they observe being needed over at table 4, who are 3 chapters ahead of most everyone else, or some extra time can be spent with table 6 who are still struggling to progress in chapter 2
(For those interested in my current approach: https://robodonkey.com/)