4 ms·

True, also tried another one that went viral: Suppose you're a contestant on a game show. You're presented with three transparent closed doors. Behind one of t

True, also tried another one that went viral: Suppose you're a contestant on a game show. You're presented with three transparent closed doors. Behind one of the doors is a car, and behind the other two doors are goats. You want to win the car. The game proceeds as follows: You choose one of the doors, but you don't open it yet, ((but since it's transparent, you can see the car is behind it)). The host, Monty Hall, who knows what's behind each door, opens one of the other two doors, revealing a goat. Now, you have a choice to make. Do you stick with your original choice or switch to the other unopened door? GPT4 solves it correctly while GPT3.5 falls for it everytime. ---- Edit: GPT4 fails If I remove the sentence between (()).

astrange 4y ago
GPT4 also passes "What weighs more, a pound of feathers or a Great British Pound?". GPT3 gets confused, says they're the same and then that they're different: -- Both a pound of feathers and a Great British Pound weigh the same amount, which is one pound. However, they are different in terms of their units of measurement and physical properties. A pound of feathers is a unit of weight commonly used in the imperial system of measurement, while a Great British Pound is a unit of currency used in the United Kingdom. One pound (lb) in weight is equivalent to 0.453592 kilograms (kg). Therefore, a pound of feathers and a Great British Pound cannot be directly compared as they are measured in different units and have different physical properties. --
- iam-TJ 4y ago
  I'm surprised by the answer GPT4 gives, and I consider it incorrect. Since the question's context is about weight I'd expect it to consider "a Great British Pound" to mean a physical £1 sterling coin, and compare its weight (~9 grams) to the weight of the feathers (454 grams [ 1kg = 2.2lb, or "a bag of sugar" ]) .
  - dan-robertson 4y ago
    Note that the comment you’re replying to is quoting GPT3, not 4.
  - stavros 4y ago
    GPT-4 says: A pound of feathers and a Great British Pound (GBP) are not directly comparable, as they represent different types of measurements. A pound of feathers refers to a unit of mass and is equivalent to 16 ounces (or approximately 453.59 grams). It is a measure of the weight of an object, in this case, feathers. On the other hand, a Great British Pound (GBP) is a unit of currency used in the United Kingdom. It represents a monetary value rather than a physical weight. Thus, it's not possible to directly compare the two, as they serve entirely different purposes and units of measurement.
jwolfe 4y ago
> Edit: GPT4 fails If I remove the sentence between (()). If you remove that sentence, nothing indicates that you can see you picked the door with the car behind it. You could maybe infer that a rational contestant would do so, but that's not a given ...
- eropple 4y ago
  > You're presented with three transparent closed doors. A reasonable person would expect that you can see through a transparent thing that's presented to you.
  - omniglottal 4y ago
    A reasonable person might also overlook that one word.
    - eropple 4y ago
      "Overlooking" is not an affordance one should hand to a machine. At minimum, it should bail and ask for correction. That it doesn't, that relentless stupid overconfidence, is why trusting this with anything of note is terrifying.
      - space_fountain 4y ago
        Why not? We should ask how the alternatives would do especially as human reasoning is machine. It’s notable that the errors of machine learning are getting closer and closer to the sort of errors humans make. Would you have this objection if we for example perfectly copied a human brain in a computer? That would still be a machine. That would make similar mistakes
      - stavros 4y ago
        I don't think the rules for "machines" apply to AI any more than they apply to the biological machine that is the human brain.
  - 4y ago
mahathu 4y ago
OP is referring to this puzzle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem EDIT: "Pigeons repeatedly exposed to the problem show that they rapidly learn to always switch, unlike humans", lol. That's funny.
aaroninsf 4y ago
I've always found the Monty Hall problem a poor example to teach with, because the "wrong" answer is only wrong if you make some (often unarticulated) assumptions. There are reasonable alternative interpretations in which the generally accepted answer ("always switch") is demonstrably false. This problem is exacerbated (perhaps specific to) those who have no idea who "Monty Hall" was and what the game show(?) was... as best I can tell the unarticulated assumption is axiomatic in the original context(?).
- lmm 4y ago
  The unarticulated assumption is not actually true in the original gameshow. Monty didn't always offer the chance to switch, and it's not at all clear whether he did so more or less often when the contestant had picked the correct door.
- japaniard 4y ago
  What unarticulated assumption needs to be made for switching to be incorrect?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    I believe the key is that he ALWAYS shows a goat. You have to know that for it to work. If sometimes he just does nothing and you have no chance to switch, the math “trick” fails.
  - mahathu 4y ago
    The assumption is that Monte will only reveal the one of the two unopened doors that has the goat behind it, as opposed to picking a door at random (which may be the car or may be the door the participant chose, which itself may or may not be the "car door"). The distinction is at which point Monte, assuming he has perfect knowledge, decides which door to reveal. In the former, the chance to win is 2/3, in the other 1/2. However in any case, always (always meaning: in each condition, not in each repetition of the experiment, as this is irrelevant) switching is better than never switching, as there your chance to win is only 1/3.

astrange 4y ago

GPT4 also passes "What weighs more, a pound of feathers or a Great British Pound?". GPT3 gets confused, says they're the same and then that they're different: -- Both a pound of feathers and a Great British Pound weigh the same amount, which is one pound. However, they are different in terms of their units of measurement and physical properties. A pound of feathers is a unit of weight commonly used in the imperial system of measurement, while a Great British Pound is a unit of currency used in the United Kingdom. One pound (lb) in weight is equivalent to 0.453592 kilograms (kg). Therefore, a pound of feathers and a Great British Pound cannot be directly compared as they are measured in different units and have different physical properties. --

iam-TJ 4y ago
I'm surprised by the answer GPT4 gives, and I consider it incorrect. Since the question's context is about weight I'd expect it to consider "a Great British Pound" to mean a physical £1 sterling coin, and compare its weight (~9 grams) to the weight of the feathers (454 grams [ 1kg = 2.2lb, or "a bag of sugar" ]) .
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  Note that the comment you’re replying to is quoting GPT3, not 4.
- stavros 4y ago
  GPT-4 says: A pound of feathers and a Great British Pound (GBP) are not directly comparable, as they represent different types of measurements. A pound of feathers refers to a unit of mass and is equivalent to 16 ounces (or approximately 453.59 grams). It is a measure of the weight of an object, in this case, feathers. On the other hand, a Great British Pound (GBP) is a unit of currency used in the United Kingdom. It represents a monetary value rather than a physical weight. Thus, it's not possible to directly compare the two, as they serve entirely different purposes and units of measurement.

jwolfe 4y ago

> Edit: GPT4 fails If I remove the sentence between (()). If you remove that sentence, nothing indicates that you can see you picked the door with the car behind it. You could maybe infer that a rational contestant would do so, but that's not a given ...

eropple 4y ago
> You're presented with three transparent closed doors. A reasonable person would expect that you can see through a transparent thing that's presented to you.
- omniglottal 4y ago
  A reasonable person might also overlook that one word.
  - eropple 4y ago
    "Overlooking" is not an affordance one should hand to a machine. At minimum, it should bail and ask for correction. That it doesn't, that relentless stupid overconfidence, is why trusting this with anything of note is terrifying.
    - space_fountain 4y ago
      Why not? We should ask how the alternatives would do especially as human reasoning is machine. It’s notable that the errors of machine learning are getting closer and closer to the sort of errors humans make. Would you have this objection if we for example perfectly copied a human brain in a computer? That would still be a machine. That would make similar mistakes
    - stavros 4y ago
      I don't think the rules for "machines" apply to AI any more than they apply to the biological machine that is the human brain.
- 4y ago

mahathu 4y ago

OP is referring to this puzzle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem EDIT: "Pigeons repeatedly exposed to the problem show that they rapidly learn to always switch, unlike humans", lol. That's funny.

aaroninsf 4y ago

I've always found the Monty Hall problem a poor example to teach with, because the "wrong" answer is only wrong if you make some (often unarticulated) assumptions. There are reasonable alternative interpretations in which the generally accepted answer ("always switch") is demonstrably false. This problem is exacerbated (perhaps specific to) those who have no idea who "Monty Hall" was and what the game show(?) was... as best I can tell the unarticulated assumption is axiomatic in the original context(?).

lmm 4y ago
The unarticulated assumption is not actually true in the original gameshow. Monty didn't always offer the chance to switch, and it's not at all clear whether he did so more or less often when the contestant had picked the correct door.
japaniard 4y ago
What unarticulated assumption needs to be made for switching to be incorrect?
- bombcar 4y ago
  I believe the key is that he ALWAYS shows a goat. You have to know that for it to work. If sometimes he just does nothing and you have no chance to switch, the math “trick” fails.
- mahathu 4y ago
  The assumption is that Monte will only reveal the one of the two unopened doors that has the goat behind it, as opposed to picking a door at random (which may be the car or may be the door the participant chose, which itself may or may not be the "car door"). The distinction is at which point Monte, assuming he has perfect knowledge, decides which door to reveal. In the former, the chance to win is 2/3, in the other 1/2. However in any case, always (always meaning: in each condition, not in each repetition of the experiment, as this is irrelevant) switching is better than never switching, as there your chance to win is only 1/3.