3 ms·
The overconfidence of ChatGPT is indeed a limitation, which can be seen in other examples as well. The correct response is to ask the user for more context. I p
by markisus 4y ago
The overconfidence of ChatGPT is indeed a limitation, which can be seen in other examples as well. The correct response is to ask the user for more context. I predict the experiment will turn out differently if this context is provided in the original prompt. For instance, you could specify if the paper is crumpled or if there seem to be financial statements written on it, or if it is a receipt for an expensive item.
However, it's unclear whether this overconfidence will *always* be a limitation. It may or may not be overcome by additional data and compute. It's unclear why one would make a commitment either way at this point, as Marcus seems to be doing.
- howaboutnope 4y ago> It may or may not be overcome by additional data and compute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Power_and_Human_Reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Power_and_Human_Reaso... > Deciding is a computational activity, something that can ultimately be programmed. It is the capacity to choose that ultimately makes us human. Choice, however, is the product of judgment, not calculation. Comprehensive human judgment is able to include non-mathematical factors such as emotions. Judgment can compare apples and oranges, and can do so without quantifying each fruit type and then reductively quantifying each to factors necessary for mathematical comparison. > The book caused disagreement with, and separation from other members of the artificial intelligence research community, a status the author later said he'd come to take pride in.