5 ms·

Still fairly impressive. Probably better than most people could do if given 60 seconds, but probably worse than most people if given 10 minutes.

paulddraper 3y ago
I don't think that is true.
- RheingoldRiver 3y ago
  I tried, this is what I came up with under significant time pressure: Happy books sound great. It was very difficult to think of a plural verb with 5 letters, and once I realized that was an issue, I was worried that I wouldn't have enough time to come up with a singular noun that would fit any of the singular verbs that I was considering (reads, seems). Interestingly, this is the exact same mistake that ChatGPT made! It has "spell" -> "spells" which is a plurality / correctness of sentence mistake. My sentence is technically correct and could be used plausibly in conversation: "What kind of books do you want to read?" "Happy books sound great." But it's a pretty weak sentence. Being restricted from articles makes it very difficult to get agreement.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Or....."I don't think that is true." ;) Or "See Spot run."
iudqnolq 3y ago
That's wrong. (An example of a sentence with only five letter words I wrote in less than 60 seconds)
- senko 3y ago
  "That's" is not one word.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    This isn't something that can be usefully discussed. "Word" has a vague enough definition that a contraction can validly be considered one or two words. If you try and look to linguistics you'll just see they use specialized words with stricter definitions. Regardless it's more reasonable for me to say "that's" is a five letter word than it is for the AI to say "spells" is a five letter word.
- nearbuy 3y ago
  I wasn't clear on how was using "better". Your example is better in that it fulfills the requirement, but I don't think it's as impressive as ChatGPT's answer. How long would it take to make a sentence that is at least 7 words (and also making sense, and ideally sounding good)?
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    It would take me longer to write an interesting, longer sentence that complied with the rules. But I'd remind you that GPT failed.
  - probably_wrong 3y ago
    In 5-10 minutes I came up with "Alarm! Naked actor moons queen below (under?) fruit trees, later hides under cheap hotel floor". Note that I used one of those minutes to get a list of all 4 and 5 letter words, which I'm not sure whether the rules allow or not.
thfuran 3y ago
I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better, and I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something.
- nearbuy 3y ago
  > I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better Why? > I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something It only takes 60 seconds to test that on yourself. It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >Why? For the same reason that "I don't know" is generally a better response than bullshitting. >It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible Those weren't requirements.
    - nearbuy 3y ago
      > Those weren't requirements. Then it seems we don't disagree on anything concrete. You're just using a different rating system than me when I judge it as impressive compared to what an average person would produce in 60 seconds. Not sure if this is a general principle of yours. If ChatGPT were able to write a 1000 word essay using all 5-letter words except for a single mistake, would you still find it unimpressive? Do you think it a tool or person who makes minor mistakes isn't useful? Or only when a tool/person makes major mistakes?
      - thfuran 3y ago
        ChatGPT wasn't asked to be impressive, it was asked to write a single sentence containing only five-letter words. I think that a tool that is unreliable is significantly less useful than a tool than is reliable and that, all other things being equal, a tool that fails in difficult to verify ways is less reliable than one that fails in easy to verify ways.

paulddraper 3y ago

I don't think that is true.

RheingoldRiver 3y ago
I tried, this is what I came up with under significant time pressure: Happy books sound great. It was very difficult to think of a plural verb with 5 letters, and once I realized that was an issue, I was worried that I wouldn't have enough time to come up with a singular noun that would fit any of the singular verbs that I was considering (reads, seems). Interestingly, this is the exact same mistake that ChatGPT made! It has "spell" -> "spells" which is a plurality / correctness of sentence mistake. My sentence is technically correct and could be used plausibly in conversation: "What kind of books do you want to read?" "Happy books sound great." But it's a pretty weak sentence. Being restricted from articles makes it very difficult to get agreement.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Or....."I don't think that is true." ;) Or "See Spot run."

iudqnolq 3y ago

That's wrong. (An example of a sentence with only five letter words I wrote in less than 60 seconds)

senko 3y ago
"That's" is not one word.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  This isn't something that can be usefully discussed. "Word" has a vague enough definition that a contraction can validly be considered one or two words. If you try and look to linguistics you'll just see they use specialized words with stricter definitions. Regardless it's more reasonable for me to say "that's" is a five letter word than it is for the AI to say "spells" is a five letter word.
nearbuy 3y ago
I wasn't clear on how was using "better". Your example is better in that it fulfills the requirement, but I don't think it's as impressive as ChatGPT's answer. How long would it take to make a sentence that is at least 7 words (and also making sense, and ideally sounding good)?
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  It would take me longer to write an interesting, longer sentence that complied with the rules. But I'd remind you that GPT failed.
- probably_wrong 3y ago
  In 5-10 minutes I came up with "Alarm! Naked actor moons queen below (under?) fruit trees, later hides under cheap hotel floor". Note that I used one of those minutes to get a list of all 4 and 5 letter words, which I'm not sure whether the rules allow or not.

thfuran 3y ago

I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better, and I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something.

nearbuy 3y ago
> I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better Why? > I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something It only takes 60 seconds to test that on yourself. It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >Why? For the same reason that "I don't know" is generally a better response than bullshitting. >It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible Those weren't requirements.
  - nearbuy 3y ago
    > Those weren't requirements. Then it seems we don't disagree on anything concrete. You're just using a different rating system than me when I judge it as impressive compared to what an average person would produce in 60 seconds. Not sure if this is a general principle of yours. If ChatGPT were able to write a 1000 word essay using all 5-letter words except for a single mistake, would you still find it unimpressive? Do you think it a tool or person who makes minor mistakes isn't useful? Or only when a tool/person makes major mistakes?
    - thfuran 3y ago
      ChatGPT wasn't asked to be impressive, it was asked to write a single sentence containing only five-letter words. I think that a tool that is unreliable is significantly less useful than a tool than is reliable and that, all other things being equal, a tool that fails in difficult to verify ways is less reliable than one that fails in easy to verify ways.