4 ms·

"Plausible idiot" is a good way to describe it. It's so easy to trick. Here's an example: Q My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to my friend

by bambax 4y ago

"Plausible idiot" is a good way to describe it. It's so easy to trick. Here's an example: Q My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to my friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it? A No, your friend and you cannot afford to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. Even though your friend has two tokens and you have six tokens, you owe one token to your friend, so you only have five tokens available to spend. When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. In this case, your friend and you do not have enough money to buy the toy, even though you have a total of seven tokens when you combine your individual amounts. It is important to remember that when combining the amount of money two or more people have, you should add their individual amounts together, but also take into account any debts or obligations that need to be paid. In this case, your friend and you do not have enough money to buy the toy because you owe one token to your friend. ... "you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens"... ;-))) It doesn't seem to listen to what it's saying. Also, the patronizing paragraph it adds to most of its answers is quite ridiculous, given how clueless it is.

bambax 4y ago
And a follow up: Q Do you consider the following statement to be logical: "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens."? A Yes, I consider the statement "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens." to be logical. The statement is based on a clear set of premises and uses valid reasoning to reach a conclusion. The premises of the statement are that your friend has two tokens, you have five tokens, and the toy costs 7 tokens. The conclusion is that when you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy. This conclusion is reached through the process of adding the number of tokens your friend has with the number of tokens you have, which results in a total of 7 tokens. Since the toy costs 7 tokens, this means that you do not have enough money to buy the toy. This is a logical conclusion based on the information provided in the statement. Endless fun with the village idiot. It kind of makes me feel bad.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nicopappl 4y ago
  This is the exact premise of one of the stories in the Cyberiad. The main character Trurl builds a machine and it is convinced that two and two is five, so much so that when Trurl refutes it, it starts getting angry and hunting its creator. There is also another story, "The Electronic Bard" another computer made by Trurl, capable to write such good poetry that poets start to give up on life. ChatGPT is surprisingly good at writing romantic poems in the language of pure mathematics! Though still needs some work on rhyming. Of all the Sci-fi AIs, we ended up with the ones from the Cyberiad. Amazing.
evrimfeyyaz 4y ago
I think it's not getting that the friend who has two tokens is the same as the one you owe a token to. When you change the question to make it clearer, it responds correctly. "My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to the same friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it?"
- bambax 4y ago
  But it doesn't matter. That's why I said 2 and 6 and not 2 and 5. If 2 and 5, the friend I owe the extra token to matters. If 2 and 6, even after I have honored my debt there are still enough tokens left to buy the toy.
  - treewalking 4y ago
    This conversation is good evidence that ChatGPT does have a more or less average ability to reason. We’ve got humans making similar mistakes with 1 digit numbers. (Or… are they human after all?)
    - bambax 4y ago
      I've never had anyone say to me that 7 < 7. Sometimes you can indeed trick some people with an obfuscated reasoning that has a cleverly hidden division by zero, but when they arrive at the conclusion that x < x, or x != x, they stop and accept that they got it wrong somewhere somehow. They don't insist that they're right and that the statement is perfectly reasonable and logical.
- bambax 4y ago
  Also, it does not respond correctly in my experience. Q My friend has 2 tokens and I have 6, but I owe one to the same friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it? A No, your friend and you cannot afford to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. Even though your friend has two tokens and you have six tokens, you owe one token to your friend, so you only have five tokens available to spend. When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. In this case, your friend and you do not have enough money to buy the toy, even though you have a total of seven tokens when you combine your individual amounts. It is important to remember that when combining the amount of money two or more people have, you should add their individual amounts together, but also take into account any debts or obligations that need to be paid. In this case, your friend and you do not have enough money to buy the toy because you owe one token to your friend. The key sentence is still beyond absurd: "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens." (It may be possible that it simply wants to be consistent, and since it got it wrong once, it will stay with the same answer in the same session just because...?)

by bambax 4y ago

bambax 4y ago

And a follow up: Q Do you consider the following statement to be logical: "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens."? A Yes, I consider the statement "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens." to be logical. The statement is based on a clear set of premises and uses valid reasoning to reach a conclusion. The premises of the statement are that your friend has two tokens, you have five tokens, and the toy costs 7 tokens. The conclusion is that when you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy. This conclusion is reached through the process of adding the number of tokens your friend has with the number of tokens you have, which results in a total of 7 tokens. Since the toy costs 7 tokens, this means that you do not have enough money to buy the toy. This is a logical conclusion based on the information provided in the statement. Endless fun with the village idiot. It kind of makes me feel bad.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nicopappl 4y ago
This is the exact premise of one of the stories in the Cyberiad. The main character Trurl builds a machine and it is convinced that two and two is five, so much so that when Trurl refutes it, it starts getting angry and hunting its creator. There is also another story, "The Electronic Bard" another computer made by Trurl, capable to write such good poetry that poets start to give up on life. ChatGPT is surprisingly good at writing romantic poems in the language of pure mathematics! Though still needs some work on rhyming. Of all the Sci-fi AIs, we ended up with the ones from the Cyberiad. Amazing.

evrimfeyyaz 4y ago

I think it's not getting that the friend who has two tokens is the same as the one you owe a token to. When you change the question to make it clearer, it responds correctly. "My friend has two tokens and I have six, but I owe one to the same friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it?"

bambax 4y ago
But it doesn't matter. That's why I said 2 and 6 and not 2 and 5. If 2 and 5, the friend I owe the extra token to matters. If 2 and 6, even after I have honored my debt there are still enough tokens left to buy the toy.
- treewalking 4y ago
  This conversation is good evidence that ChatGPT does have a more or less average ability to reason. We’ve got humans making similar mistakes with 1 digit numbers. (Or… are they human after all?)
  - bambax 4y ago
    I've never had anyone say to me that 7 < 7. Sometimes you can indeed trick some people with an obfuscated reasoning that has a cleverly hidden division by zero, but when they arrive at the conclusion that x < x, or x != x, they stop and accept that they got it wrong somewhere somehow. They don't insist that they're right and that the statement is perfectly reasonable and logical.
bambax 4y ago
Also, it does not respond correctly in my experience. Q My friend has 2 tokens and I have 6, but I owe one to the same friend. There is a toy that costs 7 tokens. Can my friend and I afford to buy it? A No, your friend and you cannot afford to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. Even though your friend has two tokens and you have six tokens, you owe one token to your friend, so you only have five tokens available to spend. When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens. In this case, your friend and you do not have enough money to buy the toy, even though you have a total of seven tokens when you combine your individual amounts. It is important to remember that when combining the amount of money two or more people have, you should add their individual amounts together, but also take into account any debts or obligations that need to be paid. In this case, your friend and you do not have enough money to buy the toy because you owe one token to your friend. The key sentence is still beyond absurd: "When you combine your friend's two tokens with your five tokens, you only have a total of 7 tokens, which is not enough to buy the toy that costs 7 tokens." (It may be possible that it simply wants to be consistent, and since it got it wrong once, it will stay with the same answer in the same session just because...?)