←back to thread

302 points mastermaq | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.878s | source | bottom
Show context
hbn ◴[] No.44370715[source]
My work gives us Copilot access since We're a Microsoft Shop™

It's too bad Copilot is by far the dumbest competitor in the space

My favorite interaction so far was when I prompted it with:

    ffmpeg command to convert movie.mov into a reasonably sized mp4
Sure, it's not the most direction instructions, but I tend to give it just enough to get the job done, assuming the LLM knows what its purpose is as an LLM, and it always works with the other chatbots.

Copilot's response:

    I implemented and executed the Python code above to convert movie.mov to a reasonably sized movie.mp4 using ffmpeg.
    
    However, the Python code failed since it was not able to find and access movie.mov file.
    Do you want me to try again or is there anything else that I can help you with?
Note that I didn't cut anything out. It didn't actually provide me any "Python code above"
replies(22): >>44370829 #>>44371002 #>>44371022 #>>44371053 #>>44371065 #>>44371287 #>>44371335 #>>44371358 #>>44371628 #>>44371891 #>>44371914 #>>44371978 #>>44372301 #>>44372892 #>>44373260 #>>44373493 #>>44373864 #>>44374419 #>>44374747 #>>44376761 #>>44377612 #>>44379849 #
NordSteve ◴[] No.44371358[source]
I pasted your prompt:

  ffmpeg command to convert movie.mov into a reasonably sized mp4
into the Copilot app just now. Here's the response:

  ffmpeg -i movie.mov -vcodec libx264 -crf 23 -preset medium -acodec aac -b:a 128k movie_converted.mp4
with this explanation

  Here’s the breakdown:
  - -vcodec libx264: Uses the H.264 video codec, great for compression and compatibility.
  - -crf 23: Constant Rate Factor — lower means better quality and larger size; higher means smaller size but lower quality. 23 is a nice middle ground.
  - -preset medium: Controls encoding speed vs. compression efficiency. You can try slow or faster depending on your needs.
  - -acodec aac -b:a 128k: Compresses the audio using AAC at 128 kbps — pretty standard and compact.
  If you're looking for even smaller file sizes, try bumping -crf up to 26 or using -preset slow.
  Want to bake in scaling, remove metadata, or trim the video too? Happy to tailor the command further.
replies(5): >>44371528 #>>44372925 #>>44373007 #>>44374040 #>>44376405 #
Aurornis ◴[] No.44373007[source]
I did the same thing for several iterations and all of the responses were equally helpful.

We get these same anecdotes about terrible AI answers frequently in a local Slack I’m in. I think people love to collect them as proof that AI is terrible and useless. Meanwhile other people have no problem hitting the retry button and getting a new answer.

Some of the common causes of bad or weird responses that I’ve learned from having this exact same conversation over and over again:

- Some people use one never-ending singular session with Copilot chat, unaware that past context is influencing the answer to their next question. This is a common way to get something like Python code in response to a command line question if you’re in a Python project or you’ve been asking Python questions.

- They have Copilot set to use a very low quality model because they accidentally changed it, or they picked a model they thought was good but is actually a low-cost model meant for light work.

- They don’t realize that Copilot supports different models and you have to go out of your way to enable the best ones.

AI discussions are weird because there are two completely different worlds of people using the same tools. Some people are so convinced the tool will be bad that they give up at the slightest inconvenience or they even revel in the bad responses as proof that AI is bad. The other world spends some time learning how to use the tools and work with a solution that doesn’t always output the right answer.

We all know AI tools are not as good as the out of control LinkedIn influencer hype, but I’m also tired of the endless claims that the tools are completely useless.

replies(9): >>44373253 #>>44373471 #>>44373558 #>>44373634 #>>44373822 #>>44375598 #>>44375719 #>>44376790 #>>44377124 #
muppetman ◴[] No.44373634[source]
The "pick your model" thing is so stupid.

"How dumb do you want your AI to be?"

"Why do I have to select?"

"Because smart costs money"

"So... I can have dumb AI but it's cheaper?"

"Yes"

"How would the average person know which to pick?"

"Oh you can't know."

I hope they can invent an AI that knows which AI model my question should target cheaply.

replies(7): >>44373707 #>>44374320 #>>44374834 #>>44376182 #>>44376980 #>>44377115 #>>44380649 #
runako ◴[] No.44377115[source]
And then the model names & descriptions are virtually useless at providing any guidance.

ChatGPT lets me choose between GPT-4o ("Great for most tasks"), o3 ("Uses advanced reasoning"), o4-mini ("Fastest at advanced reasoning"), and o4-mini-high ("Great at coding and visual reasoning").

Is what I'm doing "most tasks"? How do I know when I want "advanced reasoning"? Great, I want advanced reasoning, so I should choose the faster one with the higher version number, right? etc.

replies(3): >>44377211 #>>44378301 #>>44378654 #
dataflow ◴[] No.44377211[source]
Can't you just run a few examples by hand to see how they perform for your tasks, before committing to any for production?
replies(1): >>44377896 #
1. runako ◴[] No.44377896[source]
> before committing to any for production

I'm talking about ChatGPT, which is a Web and desktop app where users run interactive sessions. What does "production" mean in this sense?

replies(2): >>44378495 #>>44379891 #
2. dataflow ◴[] No.44378495[source]
I think I misunderstood what people were talking about. Somehow I thought it was about their APIs, for specific uses in other apps.
replies(1): >>44379178 #
3. runako ◴[] No.44379178[source]
To their credit, they did get this part correct. "ChatGPT" is the user-facing apps. The models have terrible names that do not include "ChatGPT".

Anthropic, by contrast, uses the same name for the user-facing app and the models. This is confusing, because the user-facing apps have capabilities not native to the models themselves.

4. hluska ◴[] No.44379891[source]
It’s simple - practice using them instead of complaining. Maybe you’ll figure out the differences on your own.
replies(2): >>44379979 #>>44380708 #
5. BobaFloutist ◴[] No.44379979[source]
Imagine if this is what people suggested when I asked what kind of screwdriver I should use for a given screw, because they're all labelled, like, "Phillips. Phillips 2.0. Phillips.2.second. Phillips.2.second.version 2.0. Phillips Head Screwdriver. Phillips.2.The.Second.Version. Phillips.2.the.second.Version 2.0"
6. runako ◴[] No.44380708[source]
As a person who uses LLMs daily, I do in fact do this. Couple problems with this approach:

- there are billions of people who are not accustomed to using software this way, who are in the expected target market for this software. Most people cannot tell you the major version number of their mobile OS.

- this approach requires each individual to routinely perform experiments with the expanding firmament of models and versions. This is obviously user-hostile.

Anyway, my hot take here is that making things easier for users is better. I understand that is controversial on this site.