9 ms·

Sure, but the system should then be able to show its working and explain how it derived the incorrect result. If there is other evidence that ChatGPT 'understan

by foldr 4y ago

Sure, but the system should then be able to show its working and explain how it derived the incorrect result. If there is other evidence that ChatGPT 'understands' the concept of a prime number, then let's see it. If wrong answers still count because humans sometimes make mistakes, then I guess it won’t be too difficult to construct an impressive mathematical AI. It's very tempting to give these systems the benefit of the doubt, but that tends to lead to hugely inflated conclusions about their capabilities. Remember that something as simple as ELIZA was perfectly capable of fooling humans who were predisposed to believe it was intelligent.

rain1 4y ago
> the system should then be able to show its working The system fundamentally cannot do this. You can make it generate text that is like what someone would say when asked to show their working, but that's a different thing. > It's very tempting to give these systems the benefit of the doubt, but that tends to lead to hugely inflated conclusions about their capabilities. I agree. I am seeing a bit too much over-optimistic predictions about these things. And many of these predictions are stated as fact.
ben_w 4y ago
> then I guess it won’t be too difficult to construct an impressive mathematical AI. Yes, we've had Wolfram Alpha for ages. For me, the biggest problem Wolfram Alpha is that it often doesn't understand the questions, and while I also sometimes get that with ChatGPT, the latter is much much better. I've not had a chance to play with the plug-in that connects GPT to Wolfram Alpha. > It's very tempting to give these systems the benefit of the doubt, but that tends to lead to hugely inflated conclusions about their capabilities. This is an excellent and important point. I think people who treat it as already being superhuman in the depth (not merely breadth) of each skill are nearly as wrong as those who treat it as merely a souped-up autocomplete. I've only played with 3 and 3.5 so far, not 4, my impression is that it's somewhere between "a noob" and "genius with Alzheimer's". A noob at everything at the same time, which is weird because asking a human in English to write JavaScript with all the comments in French and following that up with a request written in German for a description of Cartesian dualism written in Chinese is not something that any human would be expected to do well at, but it can do moderately well at. Edit: I should probably explicitly add that by my usage of "noob", most people aren't even that good at most things. I might be able to say 你好 if you are willing to overlook a pronunciation so poor it could easily be 尼好 or 拟好 (both of which I only found out about by asking ChatGPT), so I'm sub-noob at Chinese.

by foldr 4y ago

rain1 4y ago

> the system should then be able to show its working The system fundamentally cannot do this. You can make it generate text that is like what someone would say when asked to show their working, but that's a different thing. > It's very tempting to give these systems the benefit of the doubt, but that tends to lead to hugely inflated conclusions about their capabilities. I agree. I am seeing a bit too much over-optimistic predictions about these things. And many of these predictions are stated as fact.

ben_w 4y ago

> then I guess it won’t be too difficult to construct an impressive mathematical AI. Yes, we've had Wolfram Alpha for ages. For me, the biggest problem Wolfram Alpha is that it often doesn't understand the questions, and while I also sometimes get that with ChatGPT, the latter is much much better. I've not had a chance to play with the plug-in that connects GPT to Wolfram Alpha. > It's very tempting to give these systems the benefit of the doubt, but that tends to lead to hugely inflated conclusions about their capabilities. This is an excellent and important point. I think people who treat it as already being superhuman in the depth (not merely breadth) of each skill are nearly as wrong as those who treat it as merely a souped-up autocomplete. I've only played with 3 and 3.5 so far, not 4, my impression is that it's somewhere between "a noob" and "genius with Alzheimer's". A noob at everything at the same time, which is weird because asking a human in English to write JavaScript with all the comments in French and following that up with a request written in German for a description of Cartesian dualism written in Chinese is not something that any human would be expected to do well at, but it can do moderately well at. Edit: I should probably explicitly add that by my usage of "noob", most people aren't even that good at most things. I might be able to say 你好 if you are willing to overlook a pronunciation so poor it could easily be 尼好 or 拟好 (both of which I only found out about by asking ChatGPT), so I'm sub-noob at Chinese.