4 ms·

But human still struggle from novel university entrance exam questions. Unless you say human never struggle.

latexr 4y ago
I’m genuinely starting to wonder if you’re arguing in good faith. From answers on this thread it seems you have a fixed idea in mind and are doing everything you can to keep it intact without understanding what others are saying. Yes, humans struggle. But crucially, AI doesn’t. When GPT gives you a wrong answer it didn’t “struggle” to come up with it; spewing wrong information is just the same to it as giving you the right answer. It doesn’t know the difference, and that’s the point. Otherwise, if your claim is that it truly understands what it has read, then every time it gives you a wrong answer it means it would be actively lying. I hope you can see how that’s even worse.
- akasakahakada 4y ago
  So human do not attempt to tick arbitrary random answer in multiple choice problems when the person have empty knowledge in the domain, or simply no time to think. Human is really special.
  - latexr 4y ago
    > So human do not attempt to tick arbitrary random answer in multiple choice problems when the person have empty knowledge in the domain I truly hope you understand there is more to knowledge than multiple choice questions in a university entrance exam. Those are an extremely low bar. More importantly, that’s not what matters from the point.
    - akasakahakada 4y ago
      Simply this is just a matter or expressing the "not knowing enough" in mathematical terms. And literally this is easy, as easy as adding a threshold to the restrict from commenting anything that has vast distance from the current knowledge domain. Just a little thought, as what math professor always written in the math textbook. And I don't see it is constructive to foreverly state the human superiority instead of trying to study or modelize that intellectual ability.
      - latexr 4y ago
        > foreverly state the human superiority That is not the argument! In this thread you’re repeatedly making the same mistake, assuming every reply has an implicit bias towards saying humans are inherently better. For the most part, that is not what you’re being told. You need to understand you’re mischaracterising the arguments you’re replying to or you won’t be able to understand the replies and evolve your opinion. Don’t respond to points people haven’t made and instead read what they have written.
        akasakahakada 4y ago
        So I re-read what you have said back there as a confirmation. What I see is that you keep saying that human can understand, but AI can't, no matter how hard AI tries. Then you purpose that AI will fake the answer, etc, this shows that AI do not understand. Me interacting with ChatGPT, what I saw is that the AI system clearly understand to a certain extent that with a rough instruction, it can write absolutely accurate scientific research code. And my expertise is so narrow that if you google the topic, the only material you can find is my blog. And why I can tell ChatGPT understand stuff, is that without my rough instruction, ChatGPT can only write totally wrong non-executable and unoptimized code. Clearly ChatGPT isn't copy and paste the training set, and is able to understand what is what, even cleverer than most undergraduate human (because not even average student can understand such instruction and write that code in one pass). My rough instruction (example): write me a python code to compute the interaction between two elements. AB = I, BC=J, DE=L, and you know the rest. Remind that you can use c2=a2+b2 to speed up. ChatGPT just naild it. Automatically extrapolating the function with its physics knowledge basis. So I basically don't know what you are talking about "AI do not understand xxx". What you are assuming, has no ground.
    - akasakahakada 4y ago
      No. You completely digressed and your statement has no ground. Because I just remembered that ChatGPT is able to say "sorry I do not acknowledge xxx, would you provide some more informations?" _in__the__first__day_ of launching!!!

I’m genuinely starting to wonder if you’re arguing in good faith. From answers on this thread it seems you have a fixed idea in mind and are doing everything you can to keep it intact without understanding what others are saying. Yes, humans struggle. But crucially, AI doesn’t. When GPT gives you a wrong answer it didn’t “struggle” to come up with it; spewing wrong information is just the same to it as giving you the right answer. It doesn’t know the difference, and that’s the point. Otherwise, if your claim is that it truly understands what it has read, then every time it gives you a wrong answer it means it would be actively lying. I hope you can see how that’s even worse.

akasakahakada 4y ago
So human do not attempt to tick arbitrary random answer in multiple choice problems when the person have empty knowledge in the domain, or simply no time to think. Human is really special.
- latexr 4y ago
  > So human do not attempt to tick arbitrary random answer in multiple choice problems when the person have empty knowledge in the domain I truly hope you understand there is more to knowledge than multiple choice questions in a university entrance exam. Those are an extremely low bar. More importantly, that’s not what matters from the point.
  - akasakahakada 4y ago
    Simply this is just a matter or expressing the "not knowing enough" in mathematical terms. And literally this is easy, as easy as adding a threshold to the restrict from commenting anything that has vast distance from the current knowledge domain. Just a little thought, as what math professor always written in the math textbook. And I don't see it is constructive to foreverly state the human superiority instead of trying to study or modelize that intellectual ability.
    - latexr 4y ago
      > foreverly state the human superiority That is not the argument! In this thread you’re repeatedly making the same mistake, assuming every reply has an implicit bias towards saying humans are inherently better. For the most part, that is not what you’re being told. You need to understand you’re mischaracterising the arguments you’re replying to or you won’t be able to understand the replies and evolve your opinion. Don’t respond to points people haven’t made and instead read what they have written.
      - akasakahakada 4y ago
        So I re-read what you have said back there as a confirmation. What I see is that you keep saying that human can understand, but AI can't, no matter how hard AI tries. Then you purpose that AI will fake the answer, etc, this shows that AI do not understand. Me interacting with ChatGPT, what I saw is that the AI system clearly understand to a certain extent that with a rough instruction, it can write absolutely accurate scientific research code. And my expertise is so narrow that if you google the topic, the only material you can find is my blog. And why I can tell ChatGPT understand stuff, is that without my rough instruction, ChatGPT can only write totally wrong non-executable and unoptimized code. Clearly ChatGPT isn't copy and paste the training set, and is able to understand what is what, even cleverer than most undergraduate human (because not even average student can understand such instruction and write that code in one pass). My rough instruction (example): write me a python code to compute the interaction between two elements. AB = I, BC=J, DE=L, and you know the rest. Remind that you can use c2=a2+b2 to speed up. ChatGPT just naild it. Automatically extrapolating the function with its physics knowledge basis. So I basically don't know what you are talking about "AI do not understand xxx". What you are assuming, has no ground.
  - akasakahakada 4y ago
    No. You completely digressed and your statement has no ground. Because I just remembered that ChatGPT is able to say "sorry I do not acknowledge xxx, would you provide some more informations?" _in__the__first__day_ of launching!!!