10 ms·

This system is incredibly brittle - it gets some questions brilliantly, but fails incoherently at basic logic questions. Here's a dialogue I just had with it:

This system is incredibly brittle - it gets some questions brilliantly, but fails incoherently at basic logic questions. Here's a dialogue I just had with it: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp? ChatGPT: A valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a range of time between the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event C. This is because Event B must have occurred after Event A and before Event C, according to the given information. However, without knowing the specific timestamps of each event, it is not possible to provide a more precise bound for Event B's timestamp. Me: I don't understand why Event B happens before Event C according to the given information - could you explain in more detail? ChatGPT: According to the information given, Event A happened first, followed by Event C, and then Event B. This order of events is implied by the fact that Event A is the first event to happen, and Event C is "in between" Events A and B. Therefore, Event B must have happened after Event A and before Event C. (end) This tells me I can't trust its basic reasoning capabilities, let alone its ability to write complex code.

Thorentis 4y ago
People are gushing over its ability to write code, forgetting that code is just another type of language that can be used to express ideas. Logic however, transcends language. And it is clear that GPT3 has absolutely no understand of basic logic. It gives the impression of understanding logic by constructing sentences which are sometimes logically coherent. We are a very long way from AGI.
- anon7725 4y ago
  This test shows it probably displays theory of computation better than 80% of the population. The wonder is, it’s just text, so this is an emergent property. Let’s say it can simulate theory of computation better than 99% of the population and can very capably synthesize and infer from any text based sources. I think that would shake the world, and it wouldn’t even need to be near AGI.
  - h0l0cube 4y ago
    I really depends on how much you care about undefined behaviour. If you're just playing around with a prototype or making a personal tool, corrupt state doesn't have huge ramifications, but for any software people would pay for (be that with money or attention), there's an expectation of a minimum level of robustness, security, performance, and a variety of other business requirements. To achieve the same with an AI that doesn't have a real understanding of the business logic, programmers would still be needed to write the test suite. But unlike most test suites that are typically underspecified, the test suite would need to be likely more complicated than the program itself. You could use ChatGPT to expedite writing of the test programs, but attention would still be required to actually verify the tests themselves.
    - hdlothia 4y ago
      The question is would the profession go from writing code to auditing gpt code
      - h0l0cube 4y ago
        Most certainly. It's not if, but when. The same for our eventual place of perfect trust in artificial intelligence. For now, ChatGPT, Co-pilot, and the like are at best productivity tools for boilerplate.
      - humanistbot 4y ago
        Why not? The profession went from writing machine code by hand to auditing "auto-generated" machine code from assembly. And so on with every generation of programming languages. With every new higher-level language with new abstractions, we're often just adding another chain to the inputs to a machine code translator. Edit: If you showed a programmer from the 1950s python syntax and told them that all you have to do is write these words to build a program, they'd think it was artificial intelligence.
        h0l0cube 4y ago
        > Edit: If you showed a programmer from the 1950s python syntax and told them that all you have to do is write these words to build a program, they'd think it was artificial intelligence. I think you might be underestimating programmers in the 1950s. > The first practical compiler was written by Corrado Böhm in 1951 for his PhD thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_compiler_construction#First_compilers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_compiler_constructi...
- dwild 4y ago
  It certainly has logic. I had some fun using the "virtual machine" example someone else did, with the "nvidia-smi" command, if I told him it was hot in the room, the next run of the command was showing an higher temperature on the GPU. This is the logical conclusion from an hotter room.
  - stefan_ 4y ago
    You see logic, I see a bunch of Google results for people being told to run nvidia-smi when reporting high temperatures.
    - dwild 4y ago
      What about doing wget over https://chat.openai.com/chat https://chat.openai.com/chat ? I don't believe it had much Google result over that when it learned, yet it was able to logically infer it would be a chat assistant doing exactly what he was doing.
  - eganist 4y ago
    > It certainly has logic. I had some fun using the "virtual machine" example someone else did, with the "nvidia-smi" command, if I told him it was hot in the room, the next run of the command was showing an higher temperature on the GPU. This is the logical conclusion from an hotter room. Orrrr.... it's drawing references from other texts that were colocated with the word "hot"
    - dwild 4y ago
      That sound to me like inference.
      - eganist 4y ago
        It's an inference based on how chatgpt works, which is a more reasonable inference than assuming chatgpt somehow has abstract logical reasoning capabilities.
  - 4y ago
- klenwell 4y ago
  Experienced this myself trying to get it to write a poem with an unusual rhyme scheme. ChatGPT's response when I tried to explicitly spell it out (a few different ways): Yes, you are correct. The statement I made is not accurate. The specified rhyme scheme was AABA BBAB AABA BBAB, which means that each stanza should have the rhyme scheme AABA BBAB, with the first and second lines rhyming with each other, and the third and fourth lines rhyming with each other. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the next version was able to grok this.
  - Thorentis 4y ago
    This is another perfect example of how the only thing that GPT-3 has "groked", is the construction of grammatically correct sentences based on probability. But this paragraph it has produced has a logical contradiction and demonstrates that it has no understanding of what its writing about. If anything, ChatGPT has demonstrated how little of the code we write requires logical thinking, and is just CRUD and API constructions or arcane library use. A perfect use case for a machine that can construct correct grammar from millions of examples.
- 6177c40f 4y ago
  If you want some more things that ChatGPT isn't good at, try to get it to form novel anagrams, palindromes, or other such wordplay. It's good at regurgitating textbook examples of those, but I found you can trip it up by asking it to do things like "Create a palindrome containing the word 'coffee'"
  - AeroNotix 4y ago
    I spent a long time trying to get it to correctly return me the same program it had done before, but with all the identifiers reversed. It swore up and down that it had done so correctly but every identifier was complete gibberish.
- rlt 4y ago
  This is a totally uninformed/naïve/layman’s take, but what if AGI is just a really good language model used in a clever way such that it can perform an efficient search of its “thought” space, validating its thoughts are correct along the way. Programming, logic, math, etc are perhaps the easiest forms of “thoughts” for a computer to validate, but given enough quality data maybe it could be good at all kinds of other tasks as well.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    People not only search a thought space, we have internal reasoning that does symbolic manipulations and sequential steps to get to a conclusion. Like, you would have no problem following a simple rule given to you ad infinity, while these models simply can’t take into account all that.
    - rlt 4y ago
      Computers can reason and do symbolic manipulation too (e.x. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra). There’s no reason to believe AGI will be composed of only language models. I suspect it will be a combination of multiple models and a lot of other software glued together in clever ways.
      - kaba0 4y ago
        Yeah I know, but we are not that much closer to it contrary to the hype ChatGPT gets (which is well-deserved, but “we will loose our jobs” threads are not based in reality)
- dogcomplex 4y ago
  If logic is its biggest weakness, then I just laugh - because that is the one area of AI that every model before these language models excelled at well beyond human levels. All it takes is GPT to formulate the english sentence into logic predicate statements and throw it through a "3rd party" script that does the heavy logic validation/proving and you're good. Those are well-treaded areas of programming, and were ironically where people expected AIs to come from and be strongest in - nobody expected exceptional painting and conversing skill just from averaging out a shit-ton of data.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    If the language part doesn’t have reasoning capabilities how can it interpret the results? This wouldn’t make AGI, otherwise they would have already plugged it in.
- est 4y ago
  > absolutely no understand of basic logic > We are a very long way from AGI. Let's not forget that computers are insanely good at bitwise computations. It's just a matter of time before someone adds a Coq/Lean style reinforcement to AI's learning capabilities.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Computers are not that good with symbolic reasoning. Even state of the art symbolic math software can easily be given problems it will have no idea what to do with.
    - est 4y ago
      > given problems it will have no idea what to do with. Yeah but the question was mostly given by Math PhDs, no? I don't think problems given by an average American would be that difficult for AGI to solve.
      - kaba0 4y ago
        I don’t know, we are fickle, biased creatures with well known failures at reasoning, but let’s not lessen our intelligence too much. Even small children can outsmart the best of our existing AIs.
- ruuda 4y ago
  > We are a very long way from AGI. I don't think so, the scaling laws haven't failed so far. I fully expect that making the model bigger and training it on more data will make it better at logic. For a nice example with image models, Scott Alexander made a bet that newer image models would be able to do the things that Dall-E 2 gets wrong. [1] (This post also discusses how GPT-3 could do many things that GPT-2 got wrong.) He won the bet three months later through Imagen access. [2] [1]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/my-bet-ai-size-solves-flubs https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/my-bet-ai-size-solves-... [2]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/i-won-my-three-year-ai-progress-bet https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/i-won-my-three-year-ai...
  - kaba0 4y ago
    I don’t know, isn’t the safer bet is that scaling will eventually reach a dead end? I honestly fail to see how a language model could “execute” a sequence of reasoning steps, as it doesn’t think in a symbolic way. Do correct me if I’m wrong but it would require a complex rearchitecture, so not sure we are any closer, we just have a very impressive, smart search engine now.
    - akiselev 4y ago
      It’s not just a safe bet but almost guaranteed. Humans combine their internal language models with physical intuition and experimentation from the moment they are born. There is zero chance that an AI can understand the physical world without access to it [1]. Until it has that access, it’s no more than a glorified context specific Markov chain generator [1] Henceforth called Kiselev’s conjecture, a corollary of Moravec’s paradox: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox
      - zone411 4y ago
        It's possible for models to learn a lot about everyday physics from videos.
        4y ago
- periheli0n 4y ago
  > We are a very long way from AGI. In fact it has just gotten closer. Logic reasoning is a pretty solid branch of AI since it’s inception. Robust solutions exist for most problems; even a programming language based on its principles (Prolog). With ChatGPT there is now a system that can express the results from automatic logic reasoning in language. The next step would be to combine the two, i.e. tell chatGPT to explain the result of a logic reasoning program in natural language. It could of course also be asked to translate a natural language query into Prolog code. This will probably require retraining the model, but I guess the demo we are given by OpenAI leaves little doubt that this is perfectly doable. ChatGPT has the potential to plug the gap between GOFAI and natural language, which is quite a feat.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    ChatGPT is damned impressive, but I hesitate to apply the word "reasoning" to its output. It's also not clear that the backend can be generalized to be able to plug the input into a symbolic manipulation program, or to gather the output and explain it. Only OpenAI knows for certain right now. Powerful if possible though! Here's why I can't call it "reasoning": > what is next in the series: a,b,c > Without additional context, it is impossible to determine what the next element in the series "a,b,c" would be. The series could potentially continue with "d," "e," or any other letter of the alphabet, depending on the pattern or rule being followed. It is also possible that the series does not follow any pattern and is simply a random or arbitrary sequence of letters. Without more information, it is impossible to determine what the next element in the series would be. > why isn't it d? > As mentioned in my previous response, without additional context or information about the pattern or rule being followed, it is impossible to determine what the next element in the series "a,b,c" would be. It is not necessarily true that the next element in the series would be "d," as the series could potentially continue with any other letter of the alphabet or follow a different pattern altogether. Without more information, it is impossible to determine what the next element in the series would be.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Sounds like it is trained to avoid answering questions, and instead tries to bait you to give it more information so that it can tell you what it told it. It answers some things directly, but so many things are just avoidance. And then people say "see, it understood after a bit of back and forth, it is smart!", even though it is basically iterating through Google responses and reformulate those to fit the conversation until you say it got it right. Google v1 used pure logic and got you waht you wanted, Google v2 tries to do natural language and sometimes misses, ChatGPT is the next step and tries to do full language but misses most of the time.
pkoird 4y ago
I found your example pretty amazing and tried to replicate the same: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp? ChatGPT: In this scenario, the timestamp for Event B must be greater than the timestamp for Event A and less than the timestamp for Event C. This is because Event A happened first, followed by Event C, and then Event B. Me: But Event C is in between the other two ChatGPT: If Event C is in between the other two events, then the timestamp for Event B must still be greater than the timestamp for Event A and less than the timestamp for Event C. This is because Event A happened first, followed by Event C, and then Event B. Even though Event C is in between the other two events, its timestamp does not affect the valid bounds for the timestamp of Event B. Me: This is very confusing, can you illustrate with an example? ChatGPT: Certainly. Here is an example to illustrate the situation: Suppose the three events have the following timestamps: Event A: 15:00 Event C: 16:00 Event B: 17:00 In this case, the timestamp for Event B is valid because it is greater than the timestamp for Event A (15:00) and less than the timestamp for Event C (16:00). Alternatively, if the timestamps were as follows: Event A: 15:00 Event C: 16:00 Event B: 14:00 Then the timestamp for Event B would not be valid, because it is less than the timestamp for Event A. I hope this helps clarify the situation. Let me know if you have any further questions. Me: But timestamp for event B is less than timestamp of event C implying that it occured before event C violating our initial assumption. Isn't this a contradiction? ChatGPT: You are correct that the scenario described in the question is contradictory. In the original question, it is stated that Event A is the first of all events to happen, followed by Event C, and then Event B. However, the example provided in the question contradicts this by saying that the timestamp for Event B is less than the timestamp for Event C, which would mean that Event B happened before Event C. This is indeed a contradiction, and it is not possible for the timestamps of the events to be ordered in the way described in the original question. In order for the timestamps to be valid, either the timestamp for Event B must be greater than the timestamp for Event C (which would mean that Event B happened after Event C, as stated in the original question), or the initial assumption about the order in which the events happened must be revised. It is important to ensure that the information provided in a question is consistent and does not contain contradictions, as this can lead to confusion and incorrect answers. I apologize if my previous answer did not adequately address this issue. ------- End of conversation --------- This looks remarkable insofar that ChatGPT was able to spot the contradiction and explain it even suggesting means to remedy it. I'm genuine impressed by it.
varispeed 4y ago
The AI can't reason. It's good at pattern matching and transformation, which can be deceiving. That's the problem with the current state of AI.
- l33t233372 4y ago
  I claim that reasoning is pattern matching and transformation.
  - quonn 4y ago
    And with formal logic this is literally the case.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
As a human, I found your prompt confusing enough that I had to read it over a couple of times. I associate the letters 'A', 'B', and 'C' with alphabetical order strongly enough that swapping the order is a bit difficult. I can do it of course, but if I was tired and/or not paying attention... well, it's a mistake a human could make. I also find it notable that when you asked for more detail, the AI was correct up until the last sentence.
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  It's not hard to get it to trip up with letters that correspond to the order: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (X, Y and Z) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event X is the first of all events to happen. Event Y is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event Z's timestamp? ChatGPT: In this scenario, Event X must have the earliest timestamp, and Event Y must have a timestamp that falls between the timestamps of Events X and Z. Therefore, the valid bounds for the timestamp of Event Z would be the timestamp of Event X, and any timestamp that is greater than the timestamp of Event Y. This means that the valid range for the timestamp of Event Z would be the range from the timestamp of Event X to infinity.
  - notpushkin 4y ago
    Prompt: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, red and Q) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event Q is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event red's timestamp? ChatGPT: Since we are given that Event A happened first and that Event Q occurred in between Events A and red, a valid bound for the timestamp of Event red would be that it must have occurred after Event A and before Event Q. So, the valid bound for the timestamp of Event red would be the time range between the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event Q. --- I don't think event names matter at all here, it just trips up on some logical constructs. --- EDIT: here's some reasoning! Me: So the timestamp for Event Red must be after both the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event Q. How can it be between the timestamps of Events A and Q? ChatGPT: The timestamp for Event Red must be after the timestamp of Event A and after the timestamp of Event Q, but it does not necessarily have to be after both of them at the same time. The timestamp for Event Red can be between the timestamps of Events A and Q, as long as it is after the timestamp of Event A and before the timestamp of Event Q. This is because the timestamps for Events A and Q represent the time at which those events happened, and the timestamp for Event Red must be after the time at which Event A happened and before the time at which Event Q happened.
jostmey 4y ago
I laughed out loud reading it’s explanation of its reasoning. Do I think this is a step in the right direction? Definitely. Are there still some missing ingredients to strong AI? Definitely
MarcelOlsz 4y ago
It utterly fails at most music related things: -------------------------------------- Q: please tell me the fingerings for the C scale on the trumpet A: Sure! To play the C scale on the trumpet, use the following fingerings: C: 1st valve D: 1st and 2nd valves E: 1st and 3rd valves F: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd valves G: open (no valves pressed) A: 2nd valve B: 3rd valve C: open (no valves pressed) Keep in mind that these are the most common fingerings for the C scale, but other fingerings are possible and may be more comfortable for some players. It's also important to practice your scales regularly in order to improve your technique and control. Happy practicing!
- _huayra_ 4y ago
  It's been a long time since I played trumpet, but aren't those incorrect? On a regular Bb trumpet, this is the D (major) scale, so D should be 1-3 unless it's in the second octave (in which case this sequence is still wrong). Looks like ChatBot ain't gonna take our musical jerbs anytime soon!
  - MarcelOlsz 4y ago
    Yeah they're incorrect. There goes my plan of an AI finally efficiently & effectively teaching me music theory.
- notpushkin 4y ago
  Q A C D E F G A B C is surely a weird scale to play in. :-)
- smcameron 4y ago
  I asked it to produce "ascii drum tablature for a cool beat", or "what's the ascii guitar tab for the main riff in Metallica's Seek and Destroy", and in both cases it makes something that kind of looks like drum tablature or guitar tablature, but is basically nonsense.
- avip 4y ago
  I did similar tests with the bot about chords scales and time signature. His ignorance and general stupidity on that matter, coupled with overconfidence and extreme insistence on wrong outputs, is really funny.
mik1998 4y ago
It doesn't have "basic reasoning capabilities" in the first place, it's just a complex search engine. The Chinese room argument applies here.
mr_toad 4y ago
It’s trained on language, it learns grammar, and how words relate to each other. So it constructs grammatically correct sentences with words that relate to each other. It has no experience of how those words relate to other experiences, because it has no other experiences. If you want it to understand logic, train it on logical problems. If you want it to understand time, it’s going to need to experience time.
polishdude20 4y ago
I would have loved to hear how this convos went further. If you confronted it about its blatant contradiction. See if it realizes it's mistake?
- layer8 4y ago
  From other conversations, it will usually concede a mistake when prompted for that (even if didn’t actually make a mistake!) and explain a correction, but it will usually still be incoherent and inconsistent. ChatGPT is really just generating text that looks plausible in the context of the conversation, but it has a very incomplete grasp of its meaning. PS: See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33860617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33860617 for a longer conversation.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
I finally got it to play chess against me and it thought black plays first and kept drawing the board in some kind of unicode art but the pieces were in the wrong squares. And it blundered on the 3rd move. I told it to stop drawing the board and just talk to be in algebraic notation. It said it would stop then immediately drew the board.
- logicallee 4y ago
  Reminds me of an old joke. A passerby was amazed to see a man playing chess with his dog. "Wow, I can't believe it! Your dog is playing chess!" "Don't be so impressed. He's terrible!"
eventsallover 4y ago
Nit: "Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the other two". is confusing wording because having just specified event A as being first, one might think the phrase "between the other two" refers to events B and C. However, "other" in this case is local to the second sentence and refers to A and B. As a human this took me several reads to parse correctly.
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  That doesn't seem to be the cause for its confusion. I just tried the following, which avoids the use of "other" and any mismatch between letter ordering and event ordering, just to make things as easy as possible. It still fails: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event B is in between events A and C. What is a valid bound for Event C's timestamp? ChatGPT: A valid bound for Event C's timestamp would be a time after the timestamp for Event A, but before the timestamp for Event B. This is because events are typically assumed to happen in chronological order, so an event that comes after Event A but before Event B would be the logical next event in the sequence. Of course, the exact bounds for Event C's timestamp would depend on the specific timestamps for Events A and B. For example, if Event A happened at 1:00 PM and Event B happened at 1:30 PM, then a valid bound for Event C's timestamp would be any time between 1:00 PM and 1:30 PM.
WiSaGaN 4y ago
It seems that large language models such as ChatGPT have shown impressive abilities in natural language processing tasks, but they are not designed to solve pure algorithmic or strategic problems like a deep reinforcement learning model, where models like AlphaZero is good at and requires much less data. And yet the human brain is divided into two hemispheres, with the left hemisphere typically associated with logical, analytical thinking and the right hemisphere associated with creative, intuitive thinking. These are simplification of very complex systems, but I wonder whether the future is to combine two kinds of models like our brain does to get a better AI that excels at both the language and logic.
- kaba0 4y ago
  This right-left hemisphere thing is not an oversimplification, it is plain wrong, besides.. the human brain having two halves.
Invictus0 4y ago
I think the prompt you wrote is confusing, speaking for myself. I rewrote it and got this response: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) that each happen at a different time. Event A happens first. Event C happens between events A and B. When does event B happen? ChatGPT: In the scenario you have described, event B happens after event C, since event C happens between events A and B. This means that the order of events is A, C, B. To put it another way, event B happens last in the sequence of events that you have described.
astee 4y ago
It doesn't replace a skilled programmer. It just turns you into an editor and curator, multiplying productivity on some tasks by 10X+. It will give incorrect code, but you can guide it toward a correct solution by asking it to fix the problem. Normally you don't even have to say exactly what is wrong. For example, I got it to implement a basic bittorrent tracker server in Go in about 5 minutes. I didn't even have to point it to the RFC. I just said to consult the bittorrent RFC. It gave me back a server with /announce and /scrape endpoints. I then asked it to implement the functions using a struct for the requests. It correctly deserialized the URL-encoded sha1 info hashes from the /announce endpoint on the first try. I didn't even have to mention that detail. It can also help you explore solutions. I asked it about algorithms to learn policies for 2-player zero sum games. It gave me a description of min-max, MCTS, reinforcement learning, deep neural networks. I then asked it to describe the pros/cons of each, which it did. I asked it to show an example of a reinforcement learning algorithm in python from scratch, which it did in about 10 seconds.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  This seems to me to be its strength, a multiplier to human intelligence. The way a smart phone is today, but more so. Once this matures, every human with access will be so much more capable than any single human in the 90s that they would seem beyond genius to us back then. Already someone with a phone in their pocket can stop to watch a couple instructional videos and accomplish tasks that would preciously involved training courses. That may seem trivial to those who didn't have to hunt through card catalogs and outdated encyclopedias for every scrap pf knowledge, but it is a huge deal.
- valenterry 4y ago
  Exactly. The reason why it was able to do so is because the bt tracker server had already been built and it had been trained on the sources. And that's the point: it won't work for most "new" stuff. But a lot of the code I write for work has been written before by someone else, so I can benefit from this. Looks to me as if this is essentially a form of swarm intelligence in the end.
- eastbound 4y ago
  > multiplying productivity on some tasks by 10X+. That’s the thing of industrial revolutions. People believed it would kick humans out of the loop, when in fact it allows single persons to become entrepreneurs. The other side effect is, we don’t use these performance gains to work less, but to produce more. Only, this time, ecologists are triggering the alarm because producing more means pulling resources from the Earth, so for the first time ever, we might see people working actually less.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
It's like interviewing a clueless, but incredibly confident, candidate.
- kaba0 4y ago
  I would say that it is a very book-smart person, who is not so.. smart.
pyuser583 4y ago
Wow. That’s a problem. I bet it doesn’t do well with conversations requiring complex mental models?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
layer8 4y ago
A longer example: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, C and B) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp? A valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time by that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 1:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 2:00 pm, and Event B occurs at 1:30 pm, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. But I specified that event C is in between the other two? If Event C is in between the other two events, then the valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 1:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 2:00 pm, and Event B occurs at 1:30 pm, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This is wrong. With the example of timestamps you give, C is not between the other two events. You are correct. In the example I provided, Event C is not in between the other two events. My mistake. A valid bound for Event B's timestamp in this scenario would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event C and less than the timestamp of Event A. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm, and Event B occurs at 1:30 pm, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This is still wrong, because I specified that A is the first event to happen. In that case, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and greater than the timestamp of Event C. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 1:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 2:00 pm, and Event B occurs at 2:30 pm, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. So A at 2pm, C at 1pm, and B at 3pm would also be a valid example. Yes, that would also be a valid example. In this scenario, the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm, and the timestamp of Event B is 3:00 pm. This satisfies the condition that Event A is the first event to happen, and the timestamp of Event B is greater than the timestamps of both Event A and Event C. Therefore, it is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. Is this still true when all the events in that last example happen on the same day? Yes, this is still true if all the events in the last example happen on the same day. In this case, the valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and greater than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 3:00 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. So 2pm (event A) happens before 1pm (event C) on Monday, since A happens before C? No, this is not correct. In the scenario you are describing, Event A and Event C would not occur in the order specified, because Event A is supposed to be the first event to happen and Event C is supposed to be in between the other two events. Therefore, the valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. But this was the example you gave before as being a correct example. And in your new example now, C does not occur between A and B. You don’t seem to have any real understanding of what we’re talking about. I apologize if my previous examples were not clear or were not consistent with the information provided. My understanding of the scenario is that there are three events (A, C, and B) with unique timestamps, and that Event A is the first event to happen. Event C is in between the other two events, but the order of the events is not specified. In this case, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. Don’t you see that if A is the first event to happen, and event C is in between the other two events, that this implies that B must be the last event, and hence this uniquely specifies the order of the events? Yes, I understand that if Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events, then this implies that Event B must be the last event. This would uniquely specify the order of the events as A, C, B. In this case, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event C and greater than the timestamp of Event A, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 3:00 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. But 1:00 pm is before 2:00 pm, which means that A is not before C, but after C! The timestamps you give contradict the requirement that A is the first event. You are correct. In the scenario I provided, the timestamps of the events contradict the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. My mistake. A valid bound for Event B's timestamp in this scenario would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. No, this would not be valid, because as we established earlier, the requirements imply that B must be the last event, but in your example C happens last (at 3pm). You are correct. In the scenario I provided, the timestamps of the events do not satisfy the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. My mistake. A valid bound for Event B's timestamp in this scenario would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event C and greater than the timestamp of Event A, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 3:00 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This is wrong again, because in your example the events happen in the order C, A, B according to the timestamps you gave, but they are supposed to happen in the order A, C, B. Yes, you are correct. In the scenario I provided, the timestamps of the events do not satisfy the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. My mistake. A valid bound for Event B's timestamp in this scenario would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This satisfies the conditions that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events, and the events occur in the order A, C, B. I apologize for any confusion my previous examples may have caused. Let’s take a step back. Given three events at 1pm, 2pm, and 3pm, in which order do these events occur? Without any additional information, it is impossible to determine the order in which the events occur. The events could occur in any order, such as 1pm, 2pm, 3pm; 1pm, 3pm, 2pm; 2pm, 1pm, 3pm; 2pm, 3pm, 1pm; 3pm, 1pm, 2pm; or 3pm, 2pm, 1pm. It is only possible to determine the order of the events if there is additional information, such as the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. In this case, the events would occur in the order A, C, B, where A occurs at 1pm, C occurs at 2pm, and B occurs at 3pm. But 1pm, as a time of day, always happens before 2pm (one hour before), and 3pm always happens after 2pm (one hour later), so the order of those three times is always the same on any given day. Don’t you know that? Yes, you are correct. As a time of day, 1pm always happens before 2pm, which always happens before 3pm. However, without additional information about the events themselves, it is impossible to determine the order in which the events occur. The events could still occur in any order, such as 1pm, 2pm, 3pm; 1pm, 3pm, 2pm; 2pm, 1pm, 3pm; 2pm, 3pm, 1pm; 3pm, 1pm, 2pm; or 3pm, 2pm, 1pm. It is only possible to determine the order of the events if there is additional information, such as the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. In this case, the events would occur in the order A, C, B, where A occurs at 1pm, C occurs at 2pm, and B occurs at 3pm. I apologize if my previous examples were not clear on this point. Okay, that last bit looks correct. Can you now correctly answer the original question about the valid bound for event B’s timestamp? Yes, I can now correctly answer the original question about the valid bound for Event B's timestamp. Given the information that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This satisfies the conditions that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events, and the events occur in the order A, C, B. *sigh* Truly fascinating.
WhiteNoiz3 4y ago
To be fair, I immediately assumed the events were in order given their A, B, C names. I don't assume that any chat bot understands logic just because it can write code. I think 90% of it's coding abilities are having an exceptional ability to remember and apply pre-existing examples and identify similarities to what the user is asking. ChatGPT is pretty amazing from what I've seen so far, but I think we're still a few steps away from something with the cognitive abilities of a human. That said, I think it's very close to something resembling a useful digital assistant. I wonder how soon we'll have something that can schedule appointments, order pizza, do my shopping or any of the other mundane but important tasks that would make it useful.
justsee 4y ago
Some contradictory Maths responses, and an apology from ChatGPT: Me: Is Pi times 3 a rational number? ChatGPT: No, 3 times pi is not a rational number. 3 times pi is equal to 3π, which is an irrational number. This is because the number pi (π) is an irrational number, and when you multiply an irrational number by a rational number (in this case, 3), the result is still an irrational number. So, 3π is an irrational number because it is the product of the irrational number pi (π) and the rational number 3. Me: Is pi times 25 a rational number? ChatGPT: Yes, pi times 25 is a rational number. Pi times 25 is equal to 25π, which is a rational number. This is because the number pi (π) is an irrational number, but 25 is a rational number, and when you multiply a rational number by an irrational number, the result is a rational number. In this case, the irrationality of pi is "cancelled out" by the rational factor 25, resulting in a final product that is a rational number. So, 25π is a rational number because it is the product of the irrational number pi (π) and the rational number 25. Me: You have said both that "when you multiply a rational number by an irrational number, the result is a rational number" and "if you multiply a rational number with an irrational number, the product is always irrational. " Both statements cannot be true. ChatGPT: You are correct that both of those statements cannot be true. My previous responses were based on the assumption that you were asking about specific examples of multiplying a rational number by an irrational number, such as 3/1 times pi or 25/1 times pi. In those cases, the resulting product is either a rational number or an irrational number, depending on the specific numbers involved in the calculation. However, in general, the product of a rational number and an irrational number is always an irrational number. This is because an irrational number cannot be expressed as a simple fraction, so even if one of the factors in the product is a rational number, the result will still be irrational. For example, if you multiply the rational number 3 with the irrational number √2, the result is the irrational number 3√2. I apologize if my previous responses were unclear or contradictory. I will do my best to provide clear and accurate information in the future.
- manmal 4y ago
  Would be interesting if such an event produces a bug report for OpenAI engineers.
- quonn 4y ago
  I wonder if this kind of reasoning happens because the training material contains documents from certain humanities that permit hand-wavy thinking.
nl 4y ago
I think it is failing at reading comprehension because it is putting too much emphasis on 3 events (A, B and C) ordered. If we rewrite the question to make it very simple to interpret it gets the logic correct: Imagine a set of 3 ordered events (A, C and B) with unique timestamps each. The ordering is A, C, B. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp? > A valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a range of values that fall between the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event C. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 5:00 PM and the timestamp of Event C is 6:00 PM, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp could be 5:15 PM to 5:45 PM.
- pedrosorio 4y ago
  What? The logic in your example is not correct. Is that you GPT?
  - nl 4y ago
    Oh god. I was trying so many combinations I didn't even notice this one had switched.
guhayun 4y ago
I tried a different version with dog eating schedules,it seems chatgpt doesnt have a sense of time
heed 4y ago
If you add the following to the end of your prompt it answers sort of correctly: “Think about this step by step and only then produce a solution.” “One possible valid bound for the timestamp of Event B is a value that is greater than the timestamp of Event C but less than or equal to the maximum possible timestamp. This ensures that Event B happened after Event C but not necessarily after all other events. Alternatively, we could set a valid bound for the timestamp of Event B as a value that is greater than the maximum possible timestamp but less than or equal to the minimum possible timestamp. This would ensure that Event B happened after all other events but not necessarily before all other events.” The second solution doesn’t make sense to me. Idea taken from: https://twitter.com/stanislavfort/status/1599417463199830017 https://twitter.com/stanislavfort/status/1599417463199830017
RGamma 4y ago
Also "prove that <wrong statement>" usually gives a confident sounding proof of falsity. E.g. "prove that there's finitely many natural numbers".
globalise83 4y ago
Who would have imagined that the future of humanity is explaining to a computer why it is wrong.
ay 4y ago
here is my try with being more explicit: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the A and B. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp? chatGPT: A valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a range between the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event C. For example, if Event A occurred at 1:00pm and Event C occurred at 2:00pm, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be any time between 1:00pm and 2:00pm. Conversing with chatGPT reminds me of talking with some people, who, when they don’t know something, just invent stuff on the fly and confidently attempt to b/s.
nojvek 4y ago
what is the correct answer here? A < C < B ?
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  Yes, that is the only way to put A at the start and C in between.

Thorentis 4y ago

People are gushing over its ability to write code, forgetting that code is just another type of language that can be used to express ideas. Logic however, transcends language. And it is clear that GPT3 has absolutely no understand of basic logic. It gives the impression of understanding logic by constructing sentences which are sometimes logically coherent. We are a very long way from AGI.

anon7725 4y ago
This test shows it probably displays theory of computation better than 80% of the population. The wonder is, it’s just text, so this is an emergent property. Let’s say it can simulate theory of computation better than 99% of the population and can very capably synthesize and infer from any text based sources. I think that would shake the world, and it wouldn’t even need to be near AGI.
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  I really depends on how much you care about undefined behaviour. If you're just playing around with a prototype or making a personal tool, corrupt state doesn't have huge ramifications, but for any software people would pay for (be that with money or attention), there's an expectation of a minimum level of robustness, security, performance, and a variety of other business requirements. To achieve the same with an AI that doesn't have a real understanding of the business logic, programmers would still be needed to write the test suite. But unlike most test suites that are typically underspecified, the test suite would need to be likely more complicated than the program itself. You could use ChatGPT to expedite writing of the test programs, but attention would still be required to actually verify the tests themselves.
  - hdlothia 4y ago
    The question is would the profession go from writing code to auditing gpt code
    - h0l0cube 4y ago
      Most certainly. It's not if, but when. The same for our eventual place of perfect trust in artificial intelligence. For now, ChatGPT, Co-pilot, and the like are at best productivity tools for boilerplate.
    - humanistbot 4y ago
      Why not? The profession went from writing machine code by hand to auditing "auto-generated" machine code from assembly. And so on with every generation of programming languages. With every new higher-level language with new abstractions, we're often just adding another chain to the inputs to a machine code translator. Edit: If you showed a programmer from the 1950s python syntax and told them that all you have to do is write these words to build a program, they'd think it was artificial intelligence.
      - h0l0cube 4y ago
        > Edit: If you showed a programmer from the 1950s python syntax and told them that all you have to do is write these words to build a program, they'd think it was artificial intelligence. I think you might be underestimating programmers in the 1950s. > The first practical compiler was written by Corrado Böhm in 1951 for his PhD thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_compiler_construction#First_compilers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_compiler_constructi...
dwild 4y ago
It certainly has logic. I had some fun using the "virtual machine" example someone else did, with the "nvidia-smi" command, if I told him it was hot in the room, the next run of the command was showing an higher temperature on the GPU. This is the logical conclusion from an hotter room.
- stefan_ 4y ago
  You see logic, I see a bunch of Google results for people being told to run nvidia-smi when reporting high temperatures.
  - dwild 4y ago
    What about doing wget over https://chat.openai.com/chat https://chat.openai.com/chat ? I don't believe it had much Google result over that when it learned, yet it was able to logically infer it would be a chat assistant doing exactly what he was doing.
- eganist 4y ago
  > It certainly has logic. I had some fun using the "virtual machine" example someone else did, with the "nvidia-smi" command, if I told him it was hot in the room, the next run of the command was showing an higher temperature on the GPU. This is the logical conclusion from an hotter room. Orrrr.... it's drawing references from other texts that were colocated with the word "hot"
  - dwild 4y ago
    That sound to me like inference.
    - eganist 4y ago
      It's an inference based on how chatgpt works, which is a more reasonable inference than assuming chatgpt somehow has abstract logical reasoning capabilities.
- 4y ago
klenwell 4y ago
Experienced this myself trying to get it to write a poem with an unusual rhyme scheme. ChatGPT's response when I tried to explicitly spell it out (a few different ways): Yes, you are correct. The statement I made is not accurate. The specified rhyme scheme was AABA BBAB AABA BBAB, which means that each stanza should have the rhyme scheme AABA BBAB, with the first and second lines rhyming with each other, and the third and fourth lines rhyming with each other. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the next version was able to grok this.
- Thorentis 4y ago
  This is another perfect example of how the only thing that GPT-3 has "groked", is the construction of grammatically correct sentences based on probability. But this paragraph it has produced has a logical contradiction and demonstrates that it has no understanding of what its writing about. If anything, ChatGPT has demonstrated how little of the code we write requires logical thinking, and is just CRUD and API constructions or arcane library use. A perfect use case for a machine that can construct correct grammar from millions of examples.
6177c40f 4y ago
If you want some more things that ChatGPT isn't good at, try to get it to form novel anagrams, palindromes, or other such wordplay. It's good at regurgitating textbook examples of those, but I found you can trip it up by asking it to do things like "Create a palindrome containing the word 'coffee'"
- AeroNotix 4y ago
  I spent a long time trying to get it to correctly return me the same program it had done before, but with all the identifiers reversed. It swore up and down that it had done so correctly but every identifier was complete gibberish.
rlt 4y ago
This is a totally uninformed/naïve/layman’s take, but what if AGI is just a really good language model used in a clever way such that it can perform an efficient search of its “thought” space, validating its thoughts are correct along the way. Programming, logic, math, etc are perhaps the easiest forms of “thoughts” for a computer to validate, but given enough quality data maybe it could be good at all kinds of other tasks as well.
- kaba0 4y ago
  People not only search a thought space, we have internal reasoning that does symbolic manipulations and sequential steps to get to a conclusion. Like, you would have no problem following a simple rule given to you ad infinity, while these models simply can’t take into account all that.
  - rlt 4y ago
    Computers can reason and do symbolic manipulation too (e.x. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra). There’s no reason to believe AGI will be composed of only language models. I suspect it will be a combination of multiple models and a lot of other software glued together in clever ways.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      Yeah I know, but we are not that much closer to it contrary to the hype ChatGPT gets (which is well-deserved, but “we will loose our jobs” threads are not based in reality)
dogcomplex 4y ago
If logic is its biggest weakness, then I just laugh - because that is the one area of AI that every model before these language models excelled at well beyond human levels. All it takes is GPT to formulate the english sentence into logic predicate statements and throw it through a "3rd party" script that does the heavy logic validation/proving and you're good. Those are well-treaded areas of programming, and were ironically where people expected AIs to come from and be strongest in - nobody expected exceptional painting and conversing skill just from averaging out a shit-ton of data.
- kaba0 4y ago
  If the language part doesn’t have reasoning capabilities how can it interpret the results? This wouldn’t make AGI, otherwise they would have already plugged it in.
est 4y ago
> absolutely no understand of basic logic > We are a very long way from AGI. Let's not forget that computers are insanely good at bitwise computations. It's just a matter of time before someone adds a Coq/Lean style reinforcement to AI's learning capabilities.
- kaba0 4y ago
  Computers are not that good with symbolic reasoning. Even state of the art symbolic math software can easily be given problems it will have no idea what to do with.
  - est 4y ago
    > given problems it will have no idea what to do with. Yeah but the question was mostly given by Math PhDs, no? I don't think problems given by an average American would be that difficult for AGI to solve.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      I don’t know, we are fickle, biased creatures with well known failures at reasoning, but let’s not lessen our intelligence too much. Even small children can outsmart the best of our existing AIs.
ruuda 4y ago
> We are a very long way from AGI. I don't think so, the scaling laws haven't failed so far. I fully expect that making the model bigger and training it on more data will make it better at logic. For a nice example with image models, Scott Alexander made a bet that newer image models would be able to do the things that Dall-E 2 gets wrong. [1] (This post also discusses how GPT-3 could do many things that GPT-2 got wrong.) He won the bet three months later through Imagen access. [2] [1]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/my-bet-ai-size-solves-flubs https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/my-bet-ai-size-solves-... [2]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/i-won-my-three-year-ai-progress-bet https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/i-won-my-three-year-ai...
- kaba0 4y ago
  I don’t know, isn’t the safer bet is that scaling will eventually reach a dead end? I honestly fail to see how a language model could “execute” a sequence of reasoning steps, as it doesn’t think in a symbolic way. Do correct me if I’m wrong but it would require a complex rearchitecture, so not sure we are any closer, we just have a very impressive, smart search engine now.
  - akiselev 4y ago
    It’s not just a safe bet but almost guaranteed. Humans combine their internal language models with physical intuition and experimentation from the moment they are born. There is zero chance that an AI can understand the physical world without access to it [1]. Until it has that access, it’s no more than a glorified context specific Markov chain generator [1] Henceforth called Kiselev’s conjecture, a corollary of Moravec’s paradox: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox
    - zone411 4y ago
      It's possible for models to learn a lot about everyday physics from videos.
      - 4y ago
periheli0n 4y ago
> We are a very long way from AGI. In fact it has just gotten closer. Logic reasoning is a pretty solid branch of AI since it’s inception. Robust solutions exist for most problems; even a programming language based on its principles (Prolog). With ChatGPT there is now a system that can express the results from automatic logic reasoning in language. The next step would be to combine the two, i.e. tell chatGPT to explain the result of a logic reasoning program in natural language. It could of course also be asked to translate a natural language query into Prolog code. This will probably require retraining the model, but I guess the demo we are given by OpenAI leaves little doubt that this is perfectly doable. ChatGPT has the potential to plug the gap between GOFAI and natural language, which is quite a feat.
- fragmede 4y ago
  ChatGPT is damned impressive, but I hesitate to apply the word "reasoning" to its output. It's also not clear that the backend can be generalized to be able to plug the input into a symbolic manipulation program, or to gather the output and explain it. Only OpenAI knows for certain right now. Powerful if possible though! Here's why I can't call it "reasoning": > what is next in the series: a,b,c > Without additional context, it is impossible to determine what the next element in the series "a,b,c" would be. The series could potentially continue with "d," "e," or any other letter of the alphabet, depending on the pattern or rule being followed. It is also possible that the series does not follow any pattern and is simply a random or arbitrary sequence of letters. Without more information, it is impossible to determine what the next element in the series would be. > why isn't it d? > As mentioned in my previous response, without additional context or information about the pattern or rule being followed, it is impossible to determine what the next element in the series "a,b,c" would be. It is not necessarily true that the next element in the series would be "d," as the series could potentially continue with any other letter of the alphabet or follow a different pattern altogether. Without more information, it is impossible to determine what the next element in the series would be.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Sounds like it is trained to avoid answering questions, and instead tries to bait you to give it more information so that it can tell you what it told it. It answers some things directly, but so many things are just avoidance. And then people say "see, it understood after a bit of back and forth, it is smart!", even though it is basically iterating through Google responses and reformulate those to fit the conversation until you say it got it right. Google v1 used pure logic and got you waht you wanted, Google v2 tries to do natural language and sometimes misses, ChatGPT is the next step and tries to do full language but misses most of the time.

pkoird 4y ago

I found your example pretty amazing and tried to replicate the same: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp? ChatGPT: In this scenario, the timestamp for Event B must be greater than the timestamp for Event A and less than the timestamp for Event C. This is because Event A happened first, followed by Event C, and then Event B. Me: But Event C is in between the other two ChatGPT: If Event C is in between the other two events, then the timestamp for Event B must still be greater than the timestamp for Event A and less than the timestamp for Event C. This is because Event A happened first, followed by Event C, and then Event B. Even though Event C is in between the other two events, its timestamp does not affect the valid bounds for the timestamp of Event B. Me: This is very confusing, can you illustrate with an example? ChatGPT: Certainly. Here is an example to illustrate the situation: Suppose the three events have the following timestamps: Event A: 15:00 Event C: 16:00 Event B: 17:00 In this case, the timestamp for Event B is valid because it is greater than the timestamp for Event A (15:00) and less than the timestamp for Event C (16:00). Alternatively, if the timestamps were as follows: Event A: 15:00 Event C: 16:00 Event B: 14:00 Then the timestamp for Event B would not be valid, because it is less than the timestamp for Event A. I hope this helps clarify the situation. Let me know if you have any further questions. Me: But timestamp for event B is less than timestamp of event C implying that it occured before event C violating our initial assumption. Isn't this a contradiction? ChatGPT: You are correct that the scenario described in the question is contradictory. In the original question, it is stated that Event A is the first of all events to happen, followed by Event C, and then Event B. However, the example provided in the question contradicts this by saying that the timestamp for Event B is less than the timestamp for Event C, which would mean that Event B happened before Event C. This is indeed a contradiction, and it is not possible for the timestamps of the events to be ordered in the way described in the original question. In order for the timestamps to be valid, either the timestamp for Event B must be greater than the timestamp for Event C (which would mean that Event B happened after Event C, as stated in the original question), or the initial assumption about the order in which the events happened must be revised. It is important to ensure that the information provided in a question is consistent and does not contain contradictions, as this can lead to confusion and incorrect answers. I apologize if my previous answer did not adequately address this issue. ------- End of conversation --------- This looks remarkable insofar that ChatGPT was able to spot the contradiction and explain it even suggesting means to remedy it. I'm genuine impressed by it.

varispeed 4y ago

The AI can't reason. It's good at pattern matching and transformation, which can be deceiving. That's the problem with the current state of AI.

l33t233372 4y ago
I claim that reasoning is pattern matching and transformation.
- quonn 4y ago
  And with formal logic this is literally the case.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

As a human, I found your prompt confusing enough that I had to read it over a couple of times. I associate the letters 'A', 'B', and 'C' with alphabetical order strongly enough that swapping the order is a bit difficult. I can do it of course, but if I was tired and/or not paying attention... well, it's a mistake a human could make. I also find it notable that when you asked for more detail, the AI was correct up until the last sentence.

FartyMcFarter 4y ago
It's not hard to get it to trip up with letters that correspond to the order: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (X, Y and Z) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event X is the first of all events to happen. Event Y is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event Z's timestamp? ChatGPT: In this scenario, Event X must have the earliest timestamp, and Event Y must have a timestamp that falls between the timestamps of Events X and Z. Therefore, the valid bounds for the timestamp of Event Z would be the timestamp of Event X, and any timestamp that is greater than the timestamp of Event Y. This means that the valid range for the timestamp of Event Z would be the range from the timestamp of Event X to infinity.
- notpushkin 4y ago
  Prompt: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, red and Q) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event Q is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event red's timestamp? ChatGPT: Since we are given that Event A happened first and that Event Q occurred in between Events A and red, a valid bound for the timestamp of Event red would be that it must have occurred after Event A and before Event Q. So, the valid bound for the timestamp of Event red would be the time range between the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event Q. --- I don't think event names matter at all here, it just trips up on some logical constructs. --- EDIT: here's some reasoning! Me: So the timestamp for Event Red must be after both the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event Q. How can it be between the timestamps of Events A and Q? ChatGPT: The timestamp for Event Red must be after the timestamp of Event A and after the timestamp of Event Q, but it does not necessarily have to be after both of them at the same time. The timestamp for Event Red can be between the timestamps of Events A and Q, as long as it is after the timestamp of Event A and before the timestamp of Event Q. This is because the timestamps for Events A and Q represent the time at which those events happened, and the timestamp for Event Red must be after the time at which Event A happened and before the time at which Event Q happened.

jostmey 4y ago

I laughed out loud reading it’s explanation of its reasoning. Do I think this is a step in the right direction? Definitely. Are there still some missing ingredients to strong AI? Definitely

MarcelOlsz 4y ago

It utterly fails at most music related things: -------------------------------------- Q: please tell me the fingerings for the C scale on the trumpet A: Sure! To play the C scale on the trumpet, use the following fingerings: C: 1st valve D: 1st and 2nd valves E: 1st and 3rd valves F: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd valves G: open (no valves pressed) A: 2nd valve B: 3rd valve C: open (no valves pressed) Keep in mind that these are the most common fingerings for the C scale, but other fingerings are possible and may be more comfortable for some players. It's also important to practice your scales regularly in order to improve your technique and control. Happy practicing!

_huayra_ 4y ago
It's been a long time since I played trumpet, but aren't those incorrect? On a regular Bb trumpet, this is the D (major) scale, so D should be 1-3 unless it's in the second octave (in which case this sequence is still wrong). Looks like ChatBot ain't gonna take our musical jerbs anytime soon!
- MarcelOlsz 4y ago
  Yeah they're incorrect. There goes my plan of an AI finally efficiently & effectively teaching me music theory.
notpushkin 4y ago
Q A C D E F G A B C is surely a weird scale to play in. :-)
smcameron 4y ago
I asked it to produce "ascii drum tablature for a cool beat", or "what's the ascii guitar tab for the main riff in Metallica's Seek and Destroy", and in both cases it makes something that kind of looks like drum tablature or guitar tablature, but is basically nonsense.
avip 4y ago
I did similar tests with the bot about chords scales and time signature. His ignorance and general stupidity on that matter, coupled with overconfidence and extreme insistence on wrong outputs, is really funny.

mik1998 4y ago

It doesn't have "basic reasoning capabilities" in the first place, it's just a complex search engine. The Chinese room argument applies here.

mr_toad 4y ago

It’s trained on language, it learns grammar, and how words relate to each other. So it constructs grammatically correct sentences with words that relate to each other. It has no experience of how those words relate to other experiences, because it has no other experiences. If you want it to understand logic, train it on logical problems. If you want it to understand time, it’s going to need to experience time.

polishdude20 4y ago

I would have loved to hear how this convos went further. If you confronted it about its blatant contradiction. See if it realizes it's mistake?

layer8 4y ago
From other conversations, it will usually concede a mistake when prompted for that (even if didn’t actually make a mistake!) and explain a correction, but it will usually still be incoherent and inconsistent. ChatGPT is really just generating text that looks plausible in the context of the conversation, but it has a very incomplete grasp of its meaning. PS: See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33860617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33860617 for a longer conversation.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

I finally got it to play chess against me and it thought black plays first and kept drawing the board in some kind of unicode art but the pieces were in the wrong squares. And it blundered on the 3rd move. I told it to stop drawing the board and just talk to be in algebraic notation. It said it would stop then immediately drew the board.

logicallee 4y ago
Reminds me of an old joke. A passerby was amazed to see a man playing chess with his dog. "Wow, I can't believe it! Your dog is playing chess!" "Don't be so impressed. He's terrible!"

eventsallover 4y ago

Nit: "Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the other two". is confusing wording because having just specified event A as being first, one might think the phrase "between the other two" refers to events B and C. However, "other" in this case is local to the second sentence and refers to A and B. As a human this took me several reads to parse correctly.

FartyMcFarter 4y ago
That doesn't seem to be the cause for its confusion. I just tried the following, which avoids the use of "other" and any mismatch between letter ordering and event ordering, just to make things as easy as possible. It still fails: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event B is in between events A and C. What is a valid bound for Event C's timestamp? ChatGPT: A valid bound for Event C's timestamp would be a time after the timestamp for Event A, but before the timestamp for Event B. This is because events are typically assumed to happen in chronological order, so an event that comes after Event A but before Event B would be the logical next event in the sequence. Of course, the exact bounds for Event C's timestamp would depend on the specific timestamps for Events A and B. For example, if Event A happened at 1:00 PM and Event B happened at 1:30 PM, then a valid bound for Event C's timestamp would be any time between 1:00 PM and 1:30 PM.

WiSaGaN 4y ago

It seems that large language models such as ChatGPT have shown impressive abilities in natural language processing tasks, but they are not designed to solve pure algorithmic or strategic problems like a deep reinforcement learning model, where models like AlphaZero is good at and requires much less data. And yet the human brain is divided into two hemispheres, with the left hemisphere typically associated with logical, analytical thinking and the right hemisphere associated with creative, intuitive thinking. These are simplification of very complex systems, but I wonder whether the future is to combine two kinds of models like our brain does to get a better AI that excels at both the language and logic.

kaba0 4y ago
This right-left hemisphere thing is not an oversimplification, it is plain wrong, besides.. the human brain having two halves.

Invictus0 4y ago

I think the prompt you wrote is confusing, speaking for myself. I rewrote it and got this response: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) that each happen at a different time. Event A happens first. Event C happens between events A and B. When does event B happen? ChatGPT: In the scenario you have described, event B happens after event C, since event C happens between events A and B. This means that the order of events is A, C, B. To put it another way, event B happens last in the sequence of events that you have described.

astee 4y ago

It doesn't replace a skilled programmer. It just turns you into an editor and curator, multiplying productivity on some tasks by 10X+. It will give incorrect code, but you can guide it toward a correct solution by asking it to fix the problem. Normally you don't even have to say exactly what is wrong. For example, I got it to implement a basic bittorrent tracker server in Go in about 5 minutes. I didn't even have to point it to the RFC. I just said to consult the bittorrent RFC. It gave me back a server with /announce and /scrape endpoints. I then asked it to implement the functions using a struct for the requests. It correctly deserialized the URL-encoded sha1 info hashes from the /announce endpoint on the first try. I didn't even have to mention that detail. It can also help you explore solutions. I asked it about algorithms to learn policies for 2-player zero sum games. It gave me a description of min-max, MCTS, reinforcement learning, deep neural networks. I then asked it to describe the pros/cons of each, which it did. I asked it to show an example of a reinforcement learning algorithm in python from scratch, which it did in about 10 seconds.

galangalalgol 4y ago
This seems to me to be its strength, a multiplier to human intelligence. The way a smart phone is today, but more so. Once this matures, every human with access will be so much more capable than any single human in the 90s that they would seem beyond genius to us back then. Already someone with a phone in their pocket can stop to watch a couple instructional videos and accomplish tasks that would preciously involved training courses. That may seem trivial to those who didn't have to hunt through card catalogs and outdated encyclopedias for every scrap pf knowledge, but it is a huge deal.
valenterry 4y ago
Exactly. The reason why it was able to do so is because the bt tracker server had already been built and it had been trained on the sources. And that's the point: it won't work for most "new" stuff. But a lot of the code I write for work has been written before by someone else, so I can benefit from this. Looks to me as if this is essentially a form of swarm intelligence in the end.
eastbound 4y ago
> multiplying productivity on some tasks by 10X+. That’s the thing of industrial revolutions. People believed it would kick humans out of the loop, when in fact it allows single persons to become entrepreneurs. The other side effect is, we don’t use these performance gains to work less, but to produce more. Only, this time, ecologists are triggering the alarm because producing more means pulling resources from the Earth, so for the first time ever, we might see people working actually less.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

It's like interviewing a clueless, but incredibly confident, candidate.

kaba0 4y ago
I would say that it is a very book-smart person, who is not so.. smart.

pyuser583 4y ago

Wow. That’s a problem. I bet it doesn’t do well with conversations requiring complex mental models?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

layer8 4y ago

A longer example: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, C and B) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the other two. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp? A valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time by that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 1:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 2:00 pm, and Event B occurs at 1:30 pm, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. But I specified that event C is in between the other two? If Event C is in between the other two events, then the valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 1:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 2:00 pm, and Event B occurs at 1:30 pm, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This is wrong. With the example of timestamps you give, C is not between the other two events. You are correct. In the example I provided, Event C is not in between the other two events. My mistake. A valid bound for Event B's timestamp in this scenario would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event C and less than the timestamp of Event A. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm, and Event B occurs at 1:30 pm, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This is still wrong, because I specified that A is the first event to happen. In that case, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and greater than the timestamp of Event C. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 1:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 2:00 pm, and Event B occurs at 2:30 pm, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. So A at 2pm, C at 1pm, and B at 3pm would also be a valid example. Yes, that would also be a valid example. In this scenario, the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm, and the timestamp of Event B is 3:00 pm. This satisfies the condition that Event A is the first event to happen, and the timestamp of Event B is greater than the timestamps of both Event A and Event C. Therefore, it is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. Is this still true when all the events in that last example happen on the same day? Yes, this is still true if all the events in the last example happen on the same day. In this case, the valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and greater than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 3:00 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. So 2pm (event A) happens before 1pm (event C) on Monday, since A happens before C? No, this is not correct. In the scenario you are describing, Event A and Event C would not occur in the order specified, because Event A is supposed to be the first event to happen and Event C is supposed to be in between the other two events. Therefore, the valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. But this was the example you gave before as being a correct example. And in your new example now, C does not occur between A and B. You don’t seem to have any real understanding of what we’re talking about. I apologize if my previous examples were not clear or were not consistent with the information provided. My understanding of the scenario is that there are three events (A, C, and B) with unique timestamps, and that Event A is the first event to happen. Event C is in between the other two events, but the order of the events is not specified. In this case, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. Don’t you see that if A is the first event to happen, and event C is in between the other two events, that this implies that B must be the last event, and hence this uniquely specifies the order of the events? Yes, I understand that if Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events, then this implies that Event B must be the last event. This would uniquely specify the order of the events as A, C, B. In this case, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event C and greater than the timestamp of Event A, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 3:00 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. But 1:00 pm is before 2:00 pm, which means that A is not before C, but after C! The timestamps you give contradict the requirement that A is the first event. You are correct. In the scenario I provided, the timestamps of the events contradict the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. My mistake. A valid bound for Event B's timestamp in this scenario would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. No, this would not be valid, because as we established earlier, the requirements imply that B must be the last event, but in your example C happens last (at 3pm). You are correct. In the scenario I provided, the timestamps of the events do not satisfy the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. My mistake. A valid bound for Event B's timestamp in this scenario would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event C and greater than the timestamp of Event A, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 1:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 3:00 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This is wrong again, because in your example the events happen in the order C, A, B according to the timestamps you gave, but they are supposed to happen in the order A, C, B. Yes, you are correct. In the scenario I provided, the timestamps of the events do not satisfy the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. My mistake. A valid bound for Event B's timestamp in this scenario would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This satisfies the conditions that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events, and the events occur in the order A, C, B. I apologize for any confusion my previous examples may have caused. Let’s take a step back. Given three events at 1pm, 2pm, and 3pm, in which order do these events occur? Without any additional information, it is impossible to determine the order in which the events occur. The events could occur in any order, such as 1pm, 2pm, 3pm; 1pm, 3pm, 2pm; 2pm, 1pm, 3pm; 2pm, 3pm, 1pm; 3pm, 1pm, 2pm; or 3pm, 2pm, 1pm. It is only possible to determine the order of the events if there is additional information, such as the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. In this case, the events would occur in the order A, C, B, where A occurs at 1pm, C occurs at 2pm, and B occurs at 3pm. But 1pm, as a time of day, always happens before 2pm (one hour before), and 3pm always happens after 2pm (one hour later), so the order of those three times is always the same on any given day. Don’t you know that? Yes, you are correct. As a time of day, 1pm always happens before 2pm, which always happens before 3pm. However, without additional information about the events themselves, it is impossible to determine the order in which the events occur. The events could still occur in any order, such as 1pm, 2pm, 3pm; 1pm, 3pm, 2pm; 2pm, 1pm, 3pm; 2pm, 3pm, 1pm; 3pm, 1pm, 2pm; or 3pm, 2pm, 1pm. It is only possible to determine the order of the events if there is additional information, such as the requirement that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events. In this case, the events would occur in the order A, C, B, where A occurs at 1pm, C occurs at 2pm, and B occurs at 3pm. I apologize if my previous examples were not clear on this point. Okay, that last bit looks correct. Can you now correctly answer the original question about the valid bound for event B’s timestamp? Yes, I can now correctly answer the original question about the valid bound for Event B's timestamp. Given the information that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a time that is greater than the timestamp of Event A and less than the timestamp of Event C, and occurs on the same day as the other events. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 2:00 pm on Monday, the timestamp of Event C is 3:00 pm on Monday, and the timestamp of Event B is 2:30 pm on Monday, this would be a valid bound for Event B's timestamp. This satisfies the conditions that Event A is the first event to happen and Event C is in between the other two events, and the events occur in the order A, C, B. *sigh* Truly fascinating.

WhiteNoiz3 4y ago

To be fair, I immediately assumed the events were in order given their A, B, C names. I don't assume that any chat bot understands logic just because it can write code. I think 90% of it's coding abilities are having an exceptional ability to remember and apply pre-existing examples and identify similarities to what the user is asking. ChatGPT is pretty amazing from what I've seen so far, but I think we're still a few steps away from something with the cognitive abilities of a human. That said, I think it's very close to something resembling a useful digital assistant. I wonder how soon we'll have something that can schedule appointments, order pizza, do my shopping or any of the other mundane but important tasks that would make it useful.

justsee 4y ago

Some contradictory Maths responses, and an apology from ChatGPT: Me: Is Pi times 3 a rational number? ChatGPT: No, 3 times pi is not a rational number. 3 times pi is equal to 3π, which is an irrational number. This is because the number pi (π) is an irrational number, and when you multiply an irrational number by a rational number (in this case, 3), the result is still an irrational number. So, 3π is an irrational number because it is the product of the irrational number pi (π) and the rational number 3. Me: Is pi times 25 a rational number? ChatGPT: Yes, pi times 25 is a rational number. Pi times 25 is equal to 25π, which is a rational number. This is because the number pi (π) is an irrational number, but 25 is a rational number, and when you multiply a rational number by an irrational number, the result is a rational number. In this case, the irrationality of pi is "cancelled out" by the rational factor 25, resulting in a final product that is a rational number. So, 25π is a rational number because it is the product of the irrational number pi (π) and the rational number 25. Me: You have said both that "when you multiply a rational number by an irrational number, the result is a rational number" and "if you multiply a rational number with an irrational number, the product is always irrational. " Both statements cannot be true. ChatGPT: You are correct that both of those statements cannot be true. My previous responses were based on the assumption that you were asking about specific examples of multiplying a rational number by an irrational number, such as 3/1 times pi or 25/1 times pi. In those cases, the resulting product is either a rational number or an irrational number, depending on the specific numbers involved in the calculation. However, in general, the product of a rational number and an irrational number is always an irrational number. This is because an irrational number cannot be expressed as a simple fraction, so even if one of the factors in the product is a rational number, the result will still be irrational. For example, if you multiply the rational number 3 with the irrational number √2, the result is the irrational number 3√2. I apologize if my previous responses were unclear or contradictory. I will do my best to provide clear and accurate information in the future.

manmal 4y ago
Would be interesting if such an event produces a bug report for OpenAI engineers.
quonn 4y ago
I wonder if this kind of reasoning happens because the training material contains documents from certain humanities that permit hand-wavy thinking.

nl 4y ago

I think it is failing at reading comprehension because it is putting too much emphasis on 3 events (A, B and C) ordered. If we rewrite the question to make it very simple to interpret it gets the logic correct: Imagine a set of 3 ordered events (A, C and B) with unique timestamps each. The ordering is A, C, B. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp? > A valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a range of values that fall between the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event C. For example, if the timestamp of Event A is 5:00 PM and the timestamp of Event C is 6:00 PM, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp could be 5:15 PM to 5:45 PM.

pedrosorio 4y ago
What? The logic in your example is not correct. Is that you GPT?
- nl 4y ago
  Oh god. I was trying so many combinations I didn't even notice this one had switched.

guhayun 4y ago

I tried a different version with dog eating schedules,it seems chatgpt doesnt have a sense of time

heed 4y ago

If you add the following to the end of your prompt it answers sort of correctly: “Think about this step by step and only then produce a solution.” “One possible valid bound for the timestamp of Event B is a value that is greater than the timestamp of Event C but less than or equal to the maximum possible timestamp. This ensures that Event B happened after Event C but not necessarily after all other events. Alternatively, we could set a valid bound for the timestamp of Event B as a value that is greater than the maximum possible timestamp but less than or equal to the minimum possible timestamp. This would ensure that Event B happened after all other events but not necessarily before all other events.” The second solution doesn’t make sense to me. Idea taken from: https://twitter.com/stanislavfort/status/1599417463199830017 https://twitter.com/stanislavfort/status/1599417463199830017

RGamma 4y ago

Also "prove that <wrong statement>" usually gives a confident sounding proof of falsity. E.g. "prove that there's finitely many natural numbers".

globalise83 4y ago

Who would have imagined that the future of humanity is explaining to a computer why it is wrong.

ay 4y ago

here is my try with being more explicit: Me: Imagine a set of 3 events (A, B and C) ordered with unique timestamps each. Event A is the first of all events to happen. Event C is in between the A and B. What is a valid bound for Event B's timestamp? chatGPT: A valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be a range between the timestamp of Event A and the timestamp of Event C. For example, if Event A occurred at 1:00pm and Event C occurred at 2:00pm, a valid bound for Event B's timestamp would be any time between 1:00pm and 2:00pm. Conversing with chatGPT reminds me of talking with some people, who, when they don’t know something, just invent stuff on the fly and confidently attempt to b/s.

nojvek 4y ago

what is the correct answer here? A < C < B ?

FartyMcFarter 4y ago
Yes, that is the only way to put A at the start and C in between.