Update: As a matter of fact, I did. Here’s some Python code to prove it:
# Counts how many times a particular letter appears in a string.# Very basic code, made it just to clown on the AI bubble.
appearances = int(0) # Counts how many times the selected char appears.
sentence = input("Write some shit: ")
sentence_length = len(sentence) # We need to know how long the sentence is for later
character_select = input("Select a character: ") # Your input can be as long as you wish, but only the first char will be taken
chosen_char = chr(ord(character_select[0]))
# Three-line versionfor i inrange (0, sentence_length):
if chosen_char in sentence[i]:
appearances = appearances + 1# Two-line version (doesn't work - not sure why)# for chosen_char in sentence:# appearances = appearances + 1# (Tested using "strawberry" as sentence and "r" as character_select. Ended up getting a result of 10 ("strawberry" is 10 chars long BTW))# Finally, print the fucking resultprint("Your input contains "+str(appearances)+" appearances of the character ("+character_select+").")
There’s probably a bug or two in this I missed, but hey, it still proves I’m more of a programmer than Sam Altman ever will be.
the for x in y statement takes iterable y and assigns a value from it to x per iteration (loop), so what happens is that it’s reassigning chosen_char each loop to the next item from the sentence
(sum([x for x in sentence if x== chosen_char]) would be a quick one-liner, presuming one has downcased the sentence and other input/safety checks)
(e: this post was in response to your 2-liner comment in the code)
Could be. I was in the beta and honestly, I think the “guard-rails” they’ve had to put in truly do impact performance. Even 3.5 was better than much of what I see out of 4o
Dude it’s just kinda fucking bad. Like legitimately, the first weekend I had access to 3.5 I took the challenge of coding this complex YouTube network analysis. No problem. Like, no code just explanation. But none of the recent (anything with rails) seems to have the sharpness, where it was basically right. Even basic tasks it takes an almost worst case approach.
this isn’t autoplag fan club, and honestly if “guard rails” are the reason you think this shit is problematic it’s definitely not the place for you to be posting
I’m not sure about the down votes. But I agree it’s just gotten worse for specific tasks. I’ve only had it shut down a task once and it was me trying to get it to do something stupid.
they’re well at the top of the S-curve and now there’s only desperate over-engineering and bolting on special cases left
I still cannot believe that they couldn’t special-case
count 'R' in "strawberry"for their Strawberry model like what the fuckHell, I could probably special-case that shit, and I’m barely a programmer.
Update: As a matter of fact, I did. Here’s some Python code to prove it:
# Counts how many times a particular letter appears in a string. # Very basic code, made it just to clown on the AI bubble. appearances = int(0) # Counts how many times the selected char appears. sentence = input("Write some shit: ") sentence_length = len(sentence) # We need to know how long the sentence is for later character_select = input("Select a character: ") # Your input can be as long as you wish, but only the first char will be taken chosen_char = chr(ord(character_select[0])) # Three-line version for i in range (0, sentence_length): if chosen_char in sentence[i]: appearances = appearances + 1 # Two-line version (doesn't work - not sure why) # for chosen_char in sentence: # appearances = appearances + 1 # (Tested using "strawberry" as sentence and "r" as character_select. Ended up getting a result of 10 ("strawberry" is 10 chars long BTW)) # Finally, print the fucking result print("Your input contains "+str(appearances)+" appearances of the character ("+character_select+").")There’s probably a bug or two in this I missed, but hey, it still proves I’m more of a programmer than Sam Altman ever will be.
the
for x in ystatement takes iterableyand assigns a value from it toxper iteration (loop), so what happens is that it’s reassigningchosen_chareach loop to the next item from the sentence(
sum([x for x in sentence if x == chosen_char])would be a quick one-liner, presuming one has downcased the sentence and other input/safety checks)(e: this post was in response to your 2-liner comment in the code)
it is tickling me that this won’t even be GA but “selected companies”
best to keep
scamming the easy marks“work with clients aligned to the technology you wish to deliver”, I guessCould be. I was in the beta and honestly, I think the “guard-rails” they’ve had to put in truly do impact performance. Even 3.5 was better than much of what I see out of 4o
4o codes like 50 first dates memory style. And takes things so literally sometimes it’s silly and laughable.
Dude it’s just kinda fucking bad. Like legitimately, the first weekend I had access to 3.5 I took the challenge of coding this complex YouTube network analysis. No problem. Like, no code just explanation. But none of the recent (anything with rails) seems to have the sharpness, where it was basically right. Even basic tasks it takes an almost worst case approach.
this isn’t autoplag fan club, and honestly if “guard rails” are the reason you think this shit is problematic it’s definitely not the place for you to be posting
What’s autoplag?
Not much, what’s autoplag with you!
It’s short for automatic plagiarism machine.
Lol nice.
Ah thank you.
I’m not sure about the down votes. But I agree it’s just gotten worse for specific tasks. I’ve only had it shut down a task once and it was me trying to get it to do something stupid.
Work related tasks I do enjoy using it.
“I’m not sure about the downvotes” sigh, how many times do we have to see this stupid refrain
imagine reflecting on feedback. or do promptfans need mirror-finished text inputs to pretend to do that thinking for them too?