3 ms·
Yep: the biggest remaining weakness is that it's incapable of thinking deeply and iteratively. This is an architectural limitation (lack of reflectivity), but t
by FeepingCreature 4y ago
Yep: the biggest remaining weakness is that it's incapable of thinking deeply and iteratively. This is an architectural limitation (lack of reflectivity), but to fix it will probably usher in the singularity, so maybe we should be glad for it.
I suspect if you poked GPT-4 just right (starting with a detailed design/analysis phase?) it could find a rhetorical path through the problem that resulted in a correct algorithm on the other end. The challenge is that it can't find a path like that on its own.
Op: Can you get it to write your algorithm for this problem if you describe it in detail, as-is?
I suspect the difficulty here is just finding a socratic part to that description, which would tend to be rare in the training material. Most online material explains what and how, not why; more importantly, it doesn't tend to explain why first.
- TylerGlaiel 4y agoI have not tried, but I suspect if I described the algorithm I have instead of the problem that it could translate the algorithm into code pretty well. But I'm also unsure of that, some experiments with GPT 3.5 I did would definitely cause it to default to a common solution (ex, A) if the description was sufficiently similar to A, or not realize that a small deviation was intended. But also like... the point here was to see if it could solve a hard problem that has a non-obvious solution. not if it can translate an english description of an algorithm into code.