5 ms·
More like ambiguity. Because of the "also", one could easily expect the resulting output for foobar(9) to print: baloney yam
by grogers 4y ago
More like ambiguity. Because of the "also", one could easily expect the resulting output for foobar(9) to print:
baloney
yam
- amelius 4y agoNot really, because in that case you'd expect a clear specification of the order in which the words should appear, if they should be on the same line, etc. By your logic, a prompt like "Print foo" could result in "foo bar". You didn't ask for "bar" but the output is still valid according to you.
- grogers 4y ago1. Change ... so that foobar(9) instead prints "yam". 2. Change ... so that foobar(9) also prints "yam" 1 is not ambiguous, but 2 is. It could mean that it does it's original behavior and also does the new behavior. But it could mean like foobar(10), foobar(9) also prints only "yam" as you are interpreting it to be. I could imagine that the whole point was to see what GPT-3 did with the ambiguity, and it didn't even acknowledge it. Given that the prompt is already ambiguous I'm not sure why you'd assume that there would have to be a single expectation of the order of the prints, either one should suffice. Or maybe it was just a mistake in the prompt because English is hard. Certainly based on the code, the assumption that GPT-3 made is the most natural one.
- derangedHorse 4y ago> foobar(9) prints "baloney" and foobar(10) prints "yam" > change the function foobar so that foobar(9) also prints "yam" It interpreted the prompt in the same way that I would, making foobar(9) only print "yam", but I guess I can see the interpretation where someone might think the prompt was asking to print both. It brings awareness to the effect of cultural bias in the training set and how that might require some people with different ways of speaking to add more clarification to get the output they want.