10 ms·

Explain this conversation I just had: https://imgur.com/a/FSC9gAJ https://imgur.com/a/FSC9gAJ

bluefirebrand 4y ago
You changed the question at the end from "answer this riddle" to "explain this riddle". I would bet there is a Q&A thread on this riddle or one similar that is part of the language training model and it has regurgitated that almost verbatim to you.
- logicallee 4y ago
  There is no such Q&A thread on this riddle. As a demonstration that it really understands, I just asked it in the same thread: >Now I want to see if you really understand the puzzle or are just stringing words together. To show me that you understand it, make a version that apparently looks similar to the two examples you came up with such as "I am not my father's daughter," the lawyer said. However, this time include something that really does make the sentence false and is not a correct version of the puzzle despite looking similar." It said this: >Sure, here is a version that appears to be similar to the previous examples, but actually makes the statement false: >"I am not my father's daughter," the lawyer said. "He is not my biological father." >In this version, the lawyer is stating that the person he considers as his father is not his biological father, which makes the statement true. However, it is not the same type of puzzle as the previous examples, where the statement was related to the individual's gender identity and the traditional association of specific genders with specific parental roles, rather than the biological relationship. This clearly shows understanding. For example it used the correct pronoun this time rather than before it got it. You can't just claim everything is in its training data even when it's obviously completing new tasks based on something you just taught it that it didn't know at the start of the thread. Do you really think someone in a Q&A that is in its training data asked for a false version of this specific puzzle and that it just quoted it verbatim? Why would anyone ever do that? Or is it more likely that it is doing something close to "thinking" to come up with it?
smoldesu 4y ago
Sure: - You asked a question that can be solved with surface-level problem solving skills and - You asked the AI to generate a dozen responses until it got a correct-looking result Statistically speaking, what you did was roll the dice on the text generator until eventually it gave you a satisfying answer. Your "conversation" mostly consists of inputs being added on-top of a pre-existing context. When you generate text the next time, it accounts for this new input and tries to generate a new answer. ChatGPT has no understanding of the situation beyond what it's model thinks should happen next, and what you posit is true. If you think that's sufficient to pass as AGI, more power to ya. As a tool for generating convincing text, it's a godsend. As an approximation of human reasoning, ChatGPT is a complete and unequivocal failure.
- logicallee 4y ago
  Explain that after it got it, it could come up with a false version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34423636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34423636 By the end of the thread, it clearly understands the puzzle well enough to differentiate it from what it thought it was earlier.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    There's not a point to arguing this, because even presuming the AI can return a perfect result doesn't imply it's capable of thought. You're correct to highlight a degree of nuance to this question, but it's foolish to defend such a limited definition of intelligence. ChatGPT is incapable of independent thought, and every demo (including the one linked above) fails to demonstrate reason beyond what is expected from a synthesis program. Impressive, but pointedly limited.
    - logicallee 4y ago
      There is a point to discussing this because to me and thousands of others who have used it extensively, ChatGPT is capable of thought. Clearly it has limits but we are not talking about whether it is capable of all thoughts - we are talking about whether it's capable of any thoughts! In a very broad way it has a similar architecture (based on neurons and weights) to something we know does think. (The human mind.) In terms of its ability to handle abstract thoughts, it shows a degree of such ability. I've had ChatGPT come up with independent thoughts scores of times, just like a mind does. The human brain is just a "synthesis program" too so your sentence "what is expected from a synthesis program" is misleading. What is eventually reasonably expected from a synthesis program is the same ability to think that a human mind has. That is not the goal post today: the goal post today is "does Chatgpt show any understanding or capability for independent thought" and the answer to those people like me who have used it for such purposes is a resounding yes, it does. You are saying it is like a printing press, just mechanically putting sentences together without understanding. I am saying it is more like a child, clearly showing some ability to understand, some demonstration of reason, some independent thought, some creativity, some deduction, and lots of childlike errors. But what good is a newborn child, right?

You changed the question at the end from "answer this riddle" to "explain this riddle". I would bet there is a Q&A thread on this riddle or one similar that is part of the language training model and it has regurgitated that almost verbatim to you.

logicallee 4y ago
There is no such Q&A thread on this riddle. As a demonstration that it really understands, I just asked it in the same thread: >Now I want to see if you really understand the puzzle or are just stringing words together. To show me that you understand it, make a version that apparently looks similar to the two examples you came up with such as "I am not my father's daughter," the lawyer said. However, this time include something that really does make the sentence false and is not a correct version of the puzzle despite looking similar." It said this: >Sure, here is a version that appears to be similar to the previous examples, but actually makes the statement false: >"I am not my father's daughter," the lawyer said. "He is not my biological father." >In this version, the lawyer is stating that the person he considers as his father is not his biological father, which makes the statement true. However, it is not the same type of puzzle as the previous examples, where the statement was related to the individual's gender identity and the traditional association of specific genders with specific parental roles, rather than the biological relationship. This clearly shows understanding. For example it used the correct pronoun this time rather than before it got it. You can't just claim everything is in its training data even when it's obviously completing new tasks based on something you just taught it that it didn't know at the start of the thread. Do you really think someone in a Q&A that is in its training data asked for a false version of this specific puzzle and that it just quoted it verbatim? Why would anyone ever do that? Or is it more likely that it is doing something close to "thinking" to come up with it?

smoldesu 4y ago

Sure: - You asked a question that can be solved with surface-level problem solving skills and - You asked the AI to generate a dozen responses until it got a correct-looking result Statistically speaking, what you did was roll the dice on the text generator until eventually it gave you a satisfying answer. Your "conversation" mostly consists of inputs being added on-top of a pre-existing context. When you generate text the next time, it accounts for this new input and tries to generate a new answer. ChatGPT has no understanding of the situation beyond what it's model thinks should happen next, and what you posit is true. If you think that's sufficient to pass as AGI, more power to ya. As a tool for generating convincing text, it's a godsend. As an approximation of human reasoning, ChatGPT is a complete and unequivocal failure.

logicallee 4y ago
Explain that after it got it, it could come up with a false version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34423636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34423636 By the end of the thread, it clearly understands the puzzle well enough to differentiate it from what it thought it was earlier.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  There's not a point to arguing this, because even presuming the AI can return a perfect result doesn't imply it's capable of thought. You're correct to highlight a degree of nuance to this question, but it's foolish to defend such a limited definition of intelligence. ChatGPT is incapable of independent thought, and every demo (including the one linked above) fails to demonstrate reason beyond what is expected from a synthesis program. Impressive, but pointedly limited.
  - logicallee 4y ago
    There is a point to discussing this because to me and thousands of others who have used it extensively, ChatGPT is capable of thought. Clearly it has limits but we are not talking about whether it is capable of all thoughts - we are talking about whether it's capable of any thoughts! In a very broad way it has a similar architecture (based on neurons and weights) to something we know does think. (The human mind.) In terms of its ability to handle abstract thoughts, it shows a degree of such ability. I've had ChatGPT come up with independent thoughts scores of times, just like a mind does. The human brain is just a "synthesis program" too so your sentence "what is expected from a synthesis program" is misleading. What is eventually reasonably expected from a synthesis program is the same ability to think that a human mind has. That is not the goal post today: the goal post today is "does Chatgpt show any understanding or capability for independent thought" and the answer to those people like me who have used it for such purposes is a resounding yes, it does. You are saying it is like a printing press, just mechanically putting sentences together without understanding. I am saying it is more like a child, clearly showing some ability to understand, some demonstration of reason, some independent thought, some creativity, some deduction, and lots of childlike errors. But what good is a newborn child, right?