> The primary problem, which seems common to LLMs asked to do this stuff, is "very high level output" - a content smoothie, with few features that are particularly specific to the prompt. The marketing campaign in the OP is so generic, you can `s/Saturn Parable/Any other educational product` and it's still "fine". Similarly the emails - there are 1 to 2 sentences that are product specific, and a bunch of fluff. If I paid a marketing agency for this, I'd be very disappointed.
a) no-one's telling you to just throw the AI output up on to a website unedited, b) does it not give you at least a bit of pause how quickly this is advancing right now?
A fair sized pause, sure. But if the argument is “Don’t throw it up unedited”, and what it provides me is bare bones generic/junior stuff, I’m not sure of the huge win at this point in time. The world wasn’t short of “Generic low grade copy” templates before LLMs. It just saves a few steps in the copy/paste.
I'm not sure GPT5 will feel appreciably different on this type of task necessarily. GPT-4 feels a lot like GPT-3 for a pretty wide variety of things, but it's when you get higher complexity tasks that you start to see differences.
> no-one's telling you to just throw the AI output up on to a website unedited
Is there a genuine problem that we're solving here?
"Quickly and cheaply create a large volume of mediocre content" will definitely appeal to certain entrepreneurial types, but were we actually short of mediocre content?
What genuine problem are we solving?
Apart from a further lowering of the bar for certain entrepreneurial types to get rich(er) faster, that is.
> The article you're commenting on is only a very surface level use of AI tools.
This really is the problem.
Where are the example of people spending actual considerable amounts of time using these tools to generate meaningful content? Why are articles like this one being upvoted instead?
If what you say is true, shouldn’t we be seeing a flood of amazing stuff created using this tech? Where is it all?
Serious question. I can’t find any.
Where’s “awesome made by gpt”?
Every search result is this kind of low bar “I spent zero effort and got some kind of mediocre output and was amazed!”
When the effort to create content like this drops to zero (and let’s be real, spending 30 minutes using gpt and documenting the results is really basically zero effort), I’m frankly pretty bummed to see this rising to the top of HN.
On the one hand, GPT-4 has only been out for two weeks. Give it time.
On the other hand, if someone is going to claim that GPT-4 can make awesome things all by itself, instead of just toy demos and mediocre content - then they should be prepared to defend their claim with examples. Otherwise it’s just speculation.
I think it might be like makeup and plastic surgery. When it’s done well, you don’t notice it.
I was talking to someone the other day who maintains the social media presence for a motorbike repair shop. She’s already using chatgpt to help her “simplify” the language she posts on Facebook to their customers. Another person I know is an academic. She just busted a dozen or so of her students for using chatgpt to cheat at a university assignment. (She caught students cheating by checking the references - chatgpt hallucinated a lot of fake papers).
I wonder how much content from chatgpt we’re already consuming regularly. How many comments here on HN or articles are written by it? When it’s done well, how would you know?
When's the last time you built, shipped and wrote an article about an amazing product in less than 2 weeks? 4 months? That's how new these technologies are and you'd have had to be using them and building a produce with them from day 1 for those timelines to pan out. Give it a year and there'll be so many articles you'll be using GPT-4 to summarize them so you can read them all.
a) no-one's telling you to just throw the AI output up on to a website unedited, b) does it not give you at least a bit of pause how quickly this is advancing right now?
reply