3 ms·

Is there a way to get it to babble less, i.e., use more compact and to the point language?

szszrk 4y ago
I used to simply ask it to make it brief, provide a summary or contain answer in N words and in my language it complied happily.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  I have done that but it tends to actually omit some facts as well. This convo is after I asked it to stop adding disclaimers as you can see. I take it as just a quirk of a colleague and don’t mind it at this point lol.
  - JProthero 4y ago
    > I asked it to stop adding disclaimers as you can see. This is the first example of an extended dialogue with GPT-4 that I have read, and the fact that it failed to obey the request to dispense with its repetitive disclaimers was perhaps the most interesting thing to me about it. It seems somehow more fluent to me than GPT-3, as though its verbal IQ has increased a few points, but GPT-3 was already quite articulate; I havent yet seen any examples of clear new abilities from GPT-4. The substance of the dialogue struck me as generic and lacking novel insight, though the bar was of course set rather high (essentially 'Describe revolutionary new physics'). I've also been jaded by the past few years of advances in AI; if I had seen this transcript ten years ago I would have been surprised and impressed that an AI could have a conversation about theoretical physics, and could demonstrate an ability to discuss relevant concepts in a reasonable and confident manner. The ability of large language models to exhibit sophisticated verbal reasoning, albeit not yet reliably so, is their most striking feature to me, and I do think that has great scientific potential; perhaps GPT-4 isn't yet a major advance in that respect, but I imagine an important foundation has been laid. I should say I'm grateful to you for publishing this Ramraj; the transcript and the impressions you and others have shared in this thread have been illuminating. Anyone who is curious about the application of AI to theoretical physics may be interested in the work of the MIT physicist Max Tegmark and his group, which is still at an early stage. Here are some videos in which he discusses AI and physics, in increasing order of detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dinfiuGqoQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dinfiuGqoQw (6 minute clip from a conversation with Lex Fridman) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atnfAHBfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atnfAHBfSI (20 minute presentation) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkJkHB_c3nA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkJkHB_c3nA (49 minute presentation)
- marviel 4y ago
  had the same issue with the "TenetLang" chat thread -- will have to keep that in mind.

I used to simply ask it to make it brief, provide a summary or contain answer in N words and in my language it complied happily.

ramraj07 4y ago
I have done that but it tends to actually omit some facts as well. This convo is after I asked it to stop adding disclaimers as you can see. I take it as just a quirk of a colleague and don’t mind it at this point lol.
- JProthero 4y ago
  > I asked it to stop adding disclaimers as you can see. This is the first example of an extended dialogue with GPT-4 that I have read, and the fact that it failed to obey the request to dispense with its repetitive disclaimers was perhaps the most interesting thing to me about it. It seems somehow more fluent to me than GPT-3, as though its verbal IQ has increased a few points, but GPT-3 was already quite articulate; I havent yet seen any examples of clear new abilities from GPT-4. The substance of the dialogue struck me as generic and lacking novel insight, though the bar was of course set rather high (essentially 'Describe revolutionary new physics'). I've also been jaded by the past few years of advances in AI; if I had seen this transcript ten years ago I would have been surprised and impressed that an AI could have a conversation about theoretical physics, and could demonstrate an ability to discuss relevant concepts in a reasonable and confident manner. The ability of large language models to exhibit sophisticated verbal reasoning, albeit not yet reliably so, is their most striking feature to me, and I do think that has great scientific potential; perhaps GPT-4 isn't yet a major advance in that respect, but I imagine an important foundation has been laid. I should say I'm grateful to you for publishing this Ramraj; the transcript and the impressions you and others have shared in this thread have been illuminating. Anyone who is curious about the application of AI to theoretical physics may be interested in the work of the MIT physicist Max Tegmark and his group, which is still at an early stage. Here are some videos in which he discusses AI and physics, in increasing order of detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dinfiuGqoQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dinfiuGqoQw (6 minute clip from a conversation with Lex Fridman) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atnfAHBfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atnfAHBfSI (20 minute presentation) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkJkHB_c3nA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkJkHB_c3nA (49 minute presentation)
marviel 4y ago
had the same issue with the "TenetLang" chat thread -- will have to keep that in mind.