3 ms·
> Then, after a long discussion and exposing contradictions in the mainstream consensus, it stopped disagreeing with me and was essentially agreeing with my pos
by jancsika 4y ago
> Then, after a long discussion and exposing contradictions in the mainstream consensus, it stopped disagreeing with me and was essentially agreeing with my position.
You need to go back and argue what you already know to be a wrong position with an equal amount of persuasively written arguments.
My hypothesis from playing with Alpaca 13B is that you'll have ChatGPT agreeing with you in roughly the same amount of time.
And you ought to know whether my hypothesis is right or wrong before describing ChatGPT as "actually listening" to your arguments. Otherwise, you risk falling in love with the wrong chat bot.
- jongjong 4y agoI tried to convince it of an incorrect position about a basic topic but I couldn't continue. It made some very detailed, air-tight arguments (went beyond of my expertise). I would have had to resort to disputing definitions to keep that argument going. With my previous debate, it never touched on definitions; it was all logic-based.
- soared 4y agoI think the point above is that you can debate definitions/etc even without the knowledge and it will still believe you - because the claim is that it’s not really understanding you.