4 ms·

It's not infallible but is pretty impressive to derive answers with a combination of distinct reasoners.

joeyferris 8y ago
Making mistakes is the only way a computer can learn. It may not be infallible at the moment. But as time passes, the more accurate it will become.
- philipov 8y ago
  I think I'm gonna need to see a proof that the approximation series converges, and doesn't just wander the phase space forever, before I accept that premise.
phyzome 8y ago
I'm not convinced that it's doing any better than just doing keyword searches for question and answer terms and taking the answer with the highest match percentage.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Indeed, I did several questions all intended to be simple variations of the main examples. It did not give a coherent-sounding to any of them. But it looks like responds to the example with full paragraphs. Maybe it's real but coherent 10% of the time and they recorded the questions that yield coherent answers.
  - Qworg 8y ago
    Removing brittleness is a key research area for reasoning systems like this.
- nolemurs 8y ago
  Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right. I've asked a dozen or so questions, of for every one of them I've gotten an answer that seems related to to the words in the question, but not in any logical way: Q: What's the difference between a proton and a neutron? A: Atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Q: What trajectory do planetary orbits follow? A: Kepler's laws of planetary motion describe the orbits of objects about the Sun. Q: How do you measure the charge of an electron? A: Electrons have negative charge. Q: What conservation law is the result of the time invariance of physics? A: As a result, the law of conservation of energy has been changed into the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. None with high confidence of course, but it gives you a sense of roughly the sort of 'reasoning' this thing is doing.

Making mistakes is the only way a computer can learn. It may not be infallible at the moment. But as time passes, the more accurate it will become.

philipov 8y ago
I think I'm gonna need to see a proof that the approximation series converges, and doesn't just wander the phase space forever, before I accept that premise.

phyzome 8y ago

I'm not convinced that it's doing any better than just doing keyword searches for question and answer terms and taking the answer with the highest match percentage.

joe_the_user 8y ago
Indeed, I did several questions all intended to be simple variations of the main examples. It did not give a coherent-sounding to any of them. But it looks like responds to the example with full paragraphs. Maybe it's real but coherent 10% of the time and they recorded the questions that yield coherent answers.
- Qworg 8y ago
  Removing brittleness is a key research area for reasoning systems like this.
nolemurs 8y ago
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right. I've asked a dozen or so questions, of for every one of them I've gotten an answer that seems related to to the words in the question, but not in any logical way: Q: What's the difference between a proton and a neutron? A: Atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Q: What trajectory do planetary orbits follow? A: Kepler's laws of planetary motion describe the orbits of objects about the Sun. Q: How do you measure the charge of an electron? A: Electrons have negative charge. Q: What conservation law is the result of the time invariance of physics? A: As a result, the law of conservation of energy has been changed into the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. None with high confidence of course, but it gives you a sense of roughly the sort of 'reasoning' this thing is doing.