3 ms·
Why are we judging ChatGPT on __all__ fronts when very few humans are actual polymaths to that degree? The _average_ person can not provide me with as much dep
by PartiallyTyped 4y ago
Why are we judging ChatGPT on __all__ fronts when very few humans are actual polymaths to that degree?
The _average_ person can not provide me with as much depth or breadth of information in B. They may be able to provide details and information about what they specialized or have been doing for years, but breadth and depth? Definitely no.
Why is this expectation that the model must be able to hold a conversation like a literature or philosophy graduate when the overwhelming majority of people can not?
- dwighttk 4y agoThe question was why do we believe people can read and understand and that AI cannot. My answer provided for people reading and not understanding. Some people CAN read and understand though…
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoPeople often employ rhetorical questions to direct the audience's attention towards something, or as devices that illuminate issues with the audience's train of thought. So I will connect the dots for you. If you are judging GPT's understanding of something, then why not judge its understanding on something it has been fine-tuned in instead of picking a random field and expecting that it will perform better than the average human in a discussion?
- dwighttk 4y agoI think your question should be directed at the OP. The question was about reading comprehension and why people don’t think that AI has comprehended texts that (I’m assuming) it has in its input.