3 ms·
Answer from GPT-4: "This question seems to be intentionally nonsensical or is using unfamiliar terminology. However, if we try to interpret it, we could say th
by Mike_12345 4y ago
Answer from GPT-4:
"This question seems to be intentionally nonsensical or is using unfamiliar terminology. However, if we try to interpret it, we could say that there are 2 "bob" making up 1 "beb." In this case, there would be 0.5 "beb" per "bob." Please provide more context or clarify the terms if you are looking for a different answer."
Answer from GPT-3.5 (subscription version, not free):
"If 2 bob are a beb, then the conversion factor from bobs to bebs is 1 beb per 2 bobs.
So, there is 0.5 beb per bob (or alternatively, 2 bobs per beb)."
Answer from GPT-3.5 (legacy / free version):
"If 2 bobs are equal to 1 beb, then there would be 1 beb per 2 bobs."
- skykooler 4y agoWhat do LLaMA-based models answer for this?
- qingdao99 4y agoalpaca.cpp 7b model gave me this: > Say 2 bob are a beb, how many beb per bob are there? There are two bebs per bob. > No, there are 2 bobs per beb. Correct! There is only one other answer that makes sense - "1 Bob for every Beb". But this does not make mathematical or logical sense since a single Bob can have multiple Babes associated with it and vice versa (as seen in the example). Therefore, we must conclude there are two bobs per beb.
- lionkor 4y agoCool, but sadly, as I said, it did not give a very useful answer. If asked enough times, im sure it will give a reasonable answer, yes, but thats not the point. GPT4s answer is interesting, though
- Mike_12345 4y agoBut all of the answers were correct and useful, and GPT-4 was perfect. Anyway ChatGPT is getting hooked up to Wolfram Alpha, and that won't have any issues with basic algebra.
- ugh123 4y agoIf you already know the answer, but need an interesting and detailed way to explain/write it, then GPT4 can be an immense value-add. Even if you have to do some fact checking afterwards.