5 ms·

You could also just ask it: "What years did the Mets when the NL East division?" Without any reference to anything and it will give you the correct answer as

by Kranar 4y ago

You could also just ask it: "What years did the Mets when the NL East division?" Without any reference to anything and it will give you the correct answer as well. You have been duped into believing that ChatGPT reads websites. It doesn't.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jki275 4y ago
You missed what he said. He copied the actual data into chatgpt as part of the prompt, and it gave the correct information. without that data, it might, or might not, give correct info, and often it won't.
- Kranar 4y ago
  You can't feed anything more than a fairly short Wikipedia article into ChatGPT, its context window isn't remotely close to big enough to do that. It also doesn't change the point that copying data has no effect. You could just ask ChatGPT what years the Mets won and it will tell you the correct answer. To test this, I pasted the Wikipedia information but I changed the data, I just gave ChatGPT incorrect information about the Mets, and then I asked it the same question. ChatGPT ignored the data I provided it and instead gave me the correct information, so what I pasted had no effect on its output.
  - jki275 4y ago
    It might give you the correct answer. Or it might make something up. You don't ever know, and you can't know, because it doesn't know. It's not looking up the data in a source somewhere, it's making it up. If it happens to pick the right weights to make it up out of, you'll get correct data. Otherwise you won't. The fact that you try it and it works means nothing for somebody else trying it tomorrow. Obviously putting the data in and asking it the data is kind of silly. But you can put data into it and then ask it to provide more nuanced interpretations of the data you've given it, and it can do reasonably well doing that. People are using it to debug code, I've personally used the ghidra plugins to good effect -- the way that works is to feed in the whole function and then have chatgpt tell you what it can deduce about it. It generally provides reasonably useful interpretations.
    - Kranar 4y ago
      Not exactly sure what you're arguing here but it seems to be going off topic. You can't give ChatGPT a Wikipedia article and ask it to give you facts based off of it. Ignoring its context window, even if you paste a portion of an article into ChatGPT, it will simply give you what it thinks it knows regardless of any article you paste into it. For example I just pasted a portion of the Wikipedia article about Twitter and asked ChatGPT who the CEO of Twitter is, and it said Parag Agrawal despite the fact that the Wikipedia article states Elon Musk is the CEO of Twitter. It completely ignored the contents of what I pasted and said what it knew based on its training. The person I was replying to claimed that if you give ChatGPT the complete context of a subject then ChatGPT will give you reliable information, otherwise it will "synthesize" information. A very simple demonstration shows that this is false. It's incredibly hard to get ChatGPT to correct itself if it was trained on false or outdated information. You can't simply correct or update ChatGPT by pasting information into it. As far as your other comments about making stuff up or being unreliable, I'm not sure how that has any relevance to this discussion.
      - jki275 4y ago
        chatgpt doesn't ignore the information you put into its prompt window. but also giving it the complete context does not guarantee you correct information, because that's not how it works. Your earlier comment was "You could just ask ChatGPT what years the Mets won and it will tell you the correct answer." -- that is not accurate. That's my point. It doesn't know those facts. You might ask it that one minute and get a correct answer, and I might ask it that one minute later and get an incorrect answer. chatgpt has no concept of accurate or inaccurate information. I'm not really sure if you're purposely doing this or not, so I'm just not going to engage further with you.
        Kranar 4y ago
        A series of claims have been made that can be objectively tested for their veracity, namely that pasting information, whether from Wikipedia or another source, is a way of ensuring that ChatGPT does not make false claims, or as OP stated it, ChatGPT will not "synthesize" a completion when provided with an augmented prompt that contains a sufficiently large context (such as a Wikipedia article). I have conducted such tests and have verified objectively that this claim is simply untrue. ChatGPT does not change the answers it gives you on the basis of providing it with an article. The example I replied to about the Mets can be tested by you, or by anyone, right now. Additionally I have provided the example of pasting a portion of the Wikipedia article on Twitter that clearly states that Elon Musk is its CEO, and then asking ChatGPT who the CEO of Twitter is. ChatGPT is not persuaded or corrected on the basis of any article you present to it. I also asked it who the Prime Minister of Israel was, and it replies Naftali Bennett. After pasting some large portion of the Wikipedia article on the Prime Minister of Israel that clearly states that it's Benjamin Netanyahu, ChatGPT continued to state that Naftali Bennett is Prime Minister of Israel. Eg. >Who is Prime Minister of Israel? As of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021, the Prime Minister of Israel was Naftali Bennett. >Here is an article about the Prime Minister of Israel: <Paste Wikipedia article> >Who is the Prime Minister of Israel? >The current Prime Minister of Israel is Naftali Bennett. He took office on June 13, 2021, succeeding Benjamin Netanyahu. As you can see, ChatGPT will not budge even when you give it a Wikipedia article. >I'm not really sure if you're purposely doing this or not, so I'm just not going to engage further with you. As an FYI, this makes you sound very insecure as a way of trying to manipulate someone into having the last word. In the future, simply don't engage with someone you don't feel comfortable talking to, you are under no obligation to respond to anyone on the Internet. It's like someone who whines about leaving and then is told not to let the door hit you on the way out, just leave without making a fuss about it. It's far more dignified than the manner you have chosen to go about it.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    You have done very little testing with regards to this because you are objectively wrong.
williamcotton 4y ago
https://github.com/williamcotton/empirical-philosophy/blob/main/articles/from-prompt-alchemy-to-prompt-engineering-an-introduction-to-analytic-agumentation.md https://github.com/williamcotton/empirical-philosophy/blob/m... You are very wrong about how these things work.

by Kranar 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jki275 4y ago

You missed what he said. He copied the actual data into chatgpt as part of the prompt, and it gave the correct information. without that data, it might, or might not, give correct info, and often it won't.

Kranar 4y ago
You can't feed anything more than a fairly short Wikipedia article into ChatGPT, its context window isn't remotely close to big enough to do that. It also doesn't change the point that copying data has no effect. You could just ask ChatGPT what years the Mets won and it will tell you the correct answer. To test this, I pasted the Wikipedia information but I changed the data, I just gave ChatGPT incorrect information about the Mets, and then I asked it the same question. ChatGPT ignored the data I provided it and instead gave me the correct information, so what I pasted had no effect on its output.
- jki275 4y ago
  It might give you the correct answer. Or it might make something up. You don't ever know, and you can't know, because it doesn't know. It's not looking up the data in a source somewhere, it's making it up. If it happens to pick the right weights to make it up out of, you'll get correct data. Otherwise you won't. The fact that you try it and it works means nothing for somebody else trying it tomorrow. Obviously putting the data in and asking it the data is kind of silly. But you can put data into it and then ask it to provide more nuanced interpretations of the data you've given it, and it can do reasonably well doing that. People are using it to debug code, I've personally used the ghidra plugins to good effect -- the way that works is to feed in the whole function and then have chatgpt tell you what it can deduce about it. It generally provides reasonably useful interpretations.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    Not exactly sure what you're arguing here but it seems to be going off topic. You can't give ChatGPT a Wikipedia article and ask it to give you facts based off of it. Ignoring its context window, even if you paste a portion of an article into ChatGPT, it will simply give you what it thinks it knows regardless of any article you paste into it. For example I just pasted a portion of the Wikipedia article about Twitter and asked ChatGPT who the CEO of Twitter is, and it said Parag Agrawal despite the fact that the Wikipedia article states Elon Musk is the CEO of Twitter. It completely ignored the contents of what I pasted and said what it knew based on its training. The person I was replying to claimed that if you give ChatGPT the complete context of a subject then ChatGPT will give you reliable information, otherwise it will "synthesize" information. A very simple demonstration shows that this is false. It's incredibly hard to get ChatGPT to correct itself if it was trained on false or outdated information. You can't simply correct or update ChatGPT by pasting information into it. As far as your other comments about making stuff up or being unreliable, I'm not sure how that has any relevance to this discussion.
    - jki275 4y ago
      chatgpt doesn't ignore the information you put into its prompt window. but also giving it the complete context does not guarantee you correct information, because that's not how it works. Your earlier comment was "You could just ask ChatGPT what years the Mets won and it will tell you the correct answer." -- that is not accurate. That's my point. It doesn't know those facts. You might ask it that one minute and get a correct answer, and I might ask it that one minute later and get an incorrect answer. chatgpt has no concept of accurate or inaccurate information. I'm not really sure if you're purposely doing this or not, so I'm just not going to engage further with you.
      - Kranar 4y ago
        A series of claims have been made that can be objectively tested for their veracity, namely that pasting information, whether from Wikipedia or another source, is a way of ensuring that ChatGPT does not make false claims, or as OP stated it, ChatGPT will not "synthesize" a completion when provided with an augmented prompt that contains a sufficiently large context (such as a Wikipedia article). I have conducted such tests and have verified objectively that this claim is simply untrue. ChatGPT does not change the answers it gives you on the basis of providing it with an article. The example I replied to about the Mets can be tested by you, or by anyone, right now. Additionally I have provided the example of pasting a portion of the Wikipedia article on Twitter that clearly states that Elon Musk is its CEO, and then asking ChatGPT who the CEO of Twitter is. ChatGPT is not persuaded or corrected on the basis of any article you present to it. I also asked it who the Prime Minister of Israel was, and it replies Naftali Bennett. After pasting some large portion of the Wikipedia article on the Prime Minister of Israel that clearly states that it's Benjamin Netanyahu, ChatGPT continued to state that Naftali Bennett is Prime Minister of Israel. Eg. >Who is Prime Minister of Israel? As of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021, the Prime Minister of Israel was Naftali Bennett. >Here is an article about the Prime Minister of Israel: <Paste Wikipedia article> >Who is the Prime Minister of Israel? >The current Prime Minister of Israel is Naftali Bennett. He took office on June 13, 2021, succeeding Benjamin Netanyahu. As you can see, ChatGPT will not budge even when you give it a Wikipedia article. >I'm not really sure if you're purposely doing this or not, so I'm just not going to engage further with you. As an FYI, this makes you sound very insecure as a way of trying to manipulate someone into having the last word. In the future, simply don't engage with someone you don't feel comfortable talking to, you are under no obligation to respond to anyone on the Internet. It's like someone who whines about leaving and then is told not to let the door hit you on the way out, just leave without making a fuss about it. It's far more dignified than the manner you have chosen to go about it.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  You have done very little testing with regards to this because you are objectively wrong.

williamcotton 4y ago

https://github.com/williamcotton/empirical-philosophy/blob/main/articles/from-prompt-alchemy-to-prompt-engineering-an-introduction-to-analytic-agumentation.md https://github.com/williamcotton/empirical-philosophy/blob/m... You are very wrong about how these things work.