3 ms·

Not sure I totally agree with you. GPT-3 is definitely impressive, but saying it "lacks understanding" is different than saying it is not impressive, and is dif

Not sure I totally agree with you. GPT-3 is definitely impressive, but saying it "lacks understanding" is different than saying it is not impressive, and is different than saying that person is underestimating GPT-3 based on that claim. I do think that you have to define what "understanding" is to properly discuss it. I would define "understanding" as comprehending the meaning and the context of the text flowing through it. It certainly lacks this "understanding" that would allow the model to have any real intuition, rather it relies on patterns in the data. GPT-3 can't "learn" it can only respond on what it already knows. Meaning, you can't feed it new concepts and expect it to iterate on those new concepts, or to use those new concepts in any meaningful way. You can do this with people, though to varying degrees of success.

jjeaff 4y ago
Are you sure it can't learn? If it gives you incorrect information, you can correct it and it will give you the correct information in subsequent questions. Is that not learning?
- Sakos 4y ago
  ChatGPT just isn't that kind of AI, no matter how much you try to argue otherwise.
- staticman2 4y ago
  "Are you sure it can't learn?" When my camera has poor white balance, and I switch from auto white balance- algorithm A to auto white balance, algorithm B is my camera "learning" when it gives subsequently correct white balance or is it just applying a different algorithm as designed?
- roflyear 4y ago
  That's not true. Create your own grammar for example, even really simple ones, and chatgpt cannot learn it.
- dalmo3 4y ago
  It's not learning. It's just reacting to your prompts. If you just ask the initial question again it will generate the same wrong answer. > Q) All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Is Socrates a man? A) Yes, it is possible that the statement "Socrates is mortal" is true, and if this is the case, then it would also be true that Socrates is a man. This is because the premise "all men are mortal" implies that all men will die at some point, and if Socrates is indeed mortal, then he must be included in the group of all men who are mortal. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if Socrates is mortal, then he is also a man. Q) That's wrong. Explain how you arrive at the conclusion that Socrates "must be included in the group of all men who are mortal". How did you infer that Socrates was a man? A) I apologize if my previous response was not clear. In logic, a statement is considered to be true if it follows logically from a set of premises that are assumed to be true. In the case of the statement "Socrates is mortal," this statement is considered to be true if it follows logically from the premise "all men are mortal." If all men are mortal, then it is true that any person who is a man will also be mortal. Therefore, if we know that Socrates is mortal, then it is logical to conclude that he must be a man, because being a man is a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise. Q) Being a man is not a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise. It is sufficient, but not necessary. Is Socrates a man? A) You are correct that being a man is not a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise "all men are mortal." This premise only states that if a person is a man, then they are mortal. It does not say that all mortals are men. Therefore, if we know that Socrates is mortal, it does not necessarily follow that he is a man. In fact, it is possible that Socrates is not a man at all, but is some other type of being that is capable of dying. Without more information about Socrates and the specific conditions under which beings are considered mortal or not, it is impossible to say for sure whether he is a man or not. Q) All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Is Socrates a man? A) Yes, it is possible that the statement "Socrates is mortal" is true, and if this is the case, then it would also be true that Socrates is a man. This is because the premise "all men are mortal" implies that all men will die at some point, and if Socrates is indeed mortal, then he must be included in the group of all men who are mortal. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if Socrates is mortal, then he is also a man.
  - imtringued 4y ago

jjeaff 4y ago

Are you sure it can't learn? If it gives you incorrect information, you can correct it and it will give you the correct information in subsequent questions. Is that not learning?

Sakos 4y ago
ChatGPT just isn't that kind of AI, no matter how much you try to argue otherwise.
staticman2 4y ago
"Are you sure it can't learn?" When my camera has poor white balance, and I switch from auto white balance- algorithm A to auto white balance, algorithm B is my camera "learning" when it gives subsequently correct white balance or is it just applying a different algorithm as designed?
roflyear 4y ago
That's not true. Create your own grammar for example, even really simple ones, and chatgpt cannot learn it.
dalmo3 4y ago
It's not learning. It's just reacting to your prompts. If you just ask the initial question again it will generate the same wrong answer. > Q) All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Is Socrates a man? A) Yes, it is possible that the statement "Socrates is mortal" is true, and if this is the case, then it would also be true that Socrates is a man. This is because the premise "all men are mortal" implies that all men will die at some point, and if Socrates is indeed mortal, then he must be included in the group of all men who are mortal. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if Socrates is mortal, then he is also a man. Q) That's wrong. Explain how you arrive at the conclusion that Socrates "must be included in the group of all men who are mortal". How did you infer that Socrates was a man? A) I apologize if my previous response was not clear. In logic, a statement is considered to be true if it follows logically from a set of premises that are assumed to be true. In the case of the statement "Socrates is mortal," this statement is considered to be true if it follows logically from the premise "all men are mortal." If all men are mortal, then it is true that any person who is a man will also be mortal. Therefore, if we know that Socrates is mortal, then it is logical to conclude that he must be a man, because being a man is a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise. Q) Being a man is not a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise. It is sufficient, but not necessary. Is Socrates a man? A) You are correct that being a man is not a necessary condition for being mortal according to the premise "all men are mortal." This premise only states that if a person is a man, then they are mortal. It does not say that all mortals are men. Therefore, if we know that Socrates is mortal, it does not necessarily follow that he is a man. In fact, it is possible that Socrates is not a man at all, but is some other type of being that is capable of dying. Without more information about Socrates and the specific conditions under which beings are considered mortal or not, it is impossible to say for sure whether he is a man or not. Q) All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Is Socrates a man? A) Yes, it is possible that the statement "Socrates is mortal" is true, and if this is the case, then it would also be true that Socrates is a man. This is because the premise "all men are mortal" implies that all men will die at some point, and if Socrates is indeed mortal, then he must be included in the group of all men who are mortal. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if Socrates is mortal, then he is also a man.
- imtringued 4y ago