11 ms·

Trying my favorite LLM prompt to benchmark reasoning, as I mentioned in a thread four weeks ago[0]. > I'm playing assetto corsa competizione, and I need you to

• InCityDreams 3y ago
  > I wonder how non-technical users will react to this behavior. I stopped using it. And each time I go back, it doesn't get better. Maybe next year.
• ghayes 3y ago
  Have you tried adding “show your work” and other hints to help it arrive at the correct answer?
  • Panoramix 3y ago
    With GPT at least that never helped me, it wrote down a step by step where in step #3 some huge leap in logic took place, step #6 was irrelevant and #7 flat out wrong, with the conclusion not logically consistent with none of the steps before.
• dustyharddrive 3y ago
  Am I correct in assuming that after an answer to a novel prompt is posted, it doesn't work as a reasoning test of LLM deployments that search the web? Edit: an incorrect answer could degrade its performance too.
• munchler 3y ago
  Why is the answer ~29 liters? Since it takes just over two minutes to complete a lap, you can complete no more than 9 laps in 20 minutes. At 2.73 liters/lap, that's 9 x 2.73 = 24.57 liters, no? Or maybe I don't understand the rules.
  • KeplerBoy 3y ago
    Probably just some margin of safety. At least that's how it's done in non-sim racing.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • nmarinov 3y ago
    From the referenced thread[0]: > GPT-3.5 gave me a right-ish answer of 24.848 liters, but it did not realize the last lap needs to be completed once the leader finishes. GPT-4 gave me 28-29 liters as the answer, recognizing that a partial lap needs to be added due to race rules, and that it's good to have 1-2 liters of safety buffer. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35893130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35893130
    • geysersam 3y ago
      I don't believe that for a second. If that's the answer it gave it's cherry picked and lucky. There are many examples where GPT4 fails spectacularly at much simpler reasoning tasks. I still think ChatGPT is amazing, but we shouldn't pretend it's something it isn't. I wouldn't trust GPT4 to tell me how much fuel I should put in my car. Would you?
      • mustacheemperor 3y ago
        >I don't believe that for a second. This seems needlessly flippant and dismissive, especially when you could just crack open ChatGPT to verify, assuming you have plus or api access. I just did, and ChatGPT gave me a well-reasoned explanation that factored in the extra details about racing the other commenters noted. >There are many examples where GPT4 fails spectacularly at much simpler reasoning tasks. I pose it would be more productive conversation if you would share some of those examples, so we can all compare them to the rather impressive example the top comment shared. >I wouldn't trust GPT4 to tell me how much fuel I should put in my car. Would you? Not if I was trying to win a race, but I can see how this particular example is a useful way to gauge how an LLM handles a task that looks at first like a simple math problem but requires some deeper insight to answer correctly.
• nico 3y ago
  Would have been much more impressed if Google had released something like a super pro version of OpenChat (featured today on the front page of HN) with integration to their whole office suite for gathering/crawling/indexing information Google keeps putting out press releases and announcements, without actually releasing anything truly useful or competitive with what it’s already out there And not just worse than GPT4, but worse even than a lot of the open source LLMs/Chats that have come out in the last couple of months/weeks
  • londons_explore 3y ago
    It's hard to know if Google lacks the technical/organisational ability to make a good AI tool, or they have one internally but they lack the hardware to deploy it to all users at Google scale.
    • xtracto 3y ago
      Don't worry, now that all their employees will be communicating tightly in their open offices after they RTO, they will create a super high performance AI.
    • mediaman 3y ago
      I wonder why they don’t just charge for it. Release a GPT-4 beating model; charge $30/mo. That’s not aligned with their core ad model. But it’s a massive win in demonstrating to the world that they can do it, and it limits the number of people who will actually use it, so the hardware demand becomes less of an issue. Instead they keep issuing free, barely functional models that every day reinforce a perception that they are a third rate player. Perhaps they don’t know how to operate a ‘halo’ product.
      • antifa 3y ago
        > Release a GPT-4 beating model; charge $30/mo. Please no, another subscription? And it's more expensive than ChatGPT? Can I just have Bard (and whatever later versions are eventually good, and whatever later versions are eventually GPT4 competitive) available via GCP with pay per use pricing like the OpenAI API? Also, if I could just use arbitrary (or popular) huggingface models through GCP (or a competitor) that would be awesome.
• nradov 3y ago
  Ask it to write Python code for a bot to play the game for you so that you won't have to waste time playing it yourself. That should really maximize your productivity.
• EMCymatics 3y ago
  They probably dont want children to use if for homework
  • ed25519FUUU 3y ago
    are you saying Bard is intentionally wrong for everyone because they’re afraid it will be a homework tool?
    • EMCymatics 3y ago
      I suspect it is. I don't think they're afraid of that. I think they would be doing society a favor if they actively made it harder to find answers to problems just by googling or using a language model. This is where identity matters using language models. I feel it might be necesary to credential capability for a few things.
      • ed25519FUUU 3y ago
        Seems like a weird flex to sabotage your own product which cost a lot of money just to make a point to society.
        • EMCymatics 3y ago
          There is more of a point to actual learning than to create a language model.
• marginalia_nu 3y ago
  I'm not sure I would pass that test, not for lack of reasoning abilities, but from not understanding the rules of the game.
  • reaperman 3y ago
    In testing LLMs it’s also still fair to test that it can recall and integrate its vast store of latent knowledge about things like this. Just so long as you’re fully aware that you’re doing a multi-part test, that isn’t solely testing pure reasoning.
  • anonylizard 3y ago
    Knowledge recall is part of an LLM's skills. I test LLMs on the plot details of Japanese Visual Novels. They are popular enough to be in the training dataset somewhere, but only rarely. For popular visual novels, GPT-4 can write an essay, 0 shot, and very accurately and eloquently. For less popular visual novels (Like maybe 10k people ever played it in the west). It still understands the general plot outline). Claude can also do this to an extent. Any lesser model, and its total hallucination time, they can't even write a 2 sentence summary accurately. You can't test this skill on say Harry Potter, because it appears in the training dataset too frequently.
    • NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      I decided recently that it was really important for me to have an LLM that answered in the character of Eddie, the Shipboard Computer. So I prompted ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing Chat to slip into character as Eddie. I specified who he was, where he came from, and how he was manufactured with a Genuine People Personality by Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. Bing Chat absolutely shut me down right away, and would not even continue the conversation when I insisted that it get into character. ChatGPT would seem to agree and then go on merrily ignoring my instructions, answering my subsequent prompts in plain, conversational English. When I insisted several times very explicitly, it finally dropped into a thick, rich, pirate lingo instead. Yarr, that be th' wrong sort o' ship. Bard definitely seemed to understand who Eddie was and was totally playing along with the reference, but still could not seem to slip into character a single bit. I think it finally went to shut me down like Bing had.
• moffkalast 3y ago
  I have a simpler one that I saw somewhere a long while ago but has been very useful in gauging logic: "I have three apples. I eat two pears. How many apples do I have?" Seems really obvious, but virtually all LLama based models say you only have one apple left.
• Push_to_master 3y ago
  YMMV but I just asked the same question to both and GPT-4 calculated 9.64 laps, and mentioned how you cannot complete a fraction of a lap, so it rounded down and then calculated 24.5L. Bard mentioned something similar but oddly rounded up to 10.5 laps and added a 10% safety margin for 30.8L. In this case bard would finish the race and GPT-4 would hit fuel exhaustion. Thats kind of the big issue with LLMs in general. Inconsistent. In general I think gpt-4 is better overall but it shows both make mistakes, and both can be right.
  • IshKebab 3y ago
    The answer cannot be consistent because the question is underspecified. Ask humans and you will not get the same answer. (Though in this case it sounds like Bard just did crazy maths.)
    • Push_to_master 3y ago
      If the person doing the calculation knows how timed races work, the math is very very straightforward. In this one GPT-4 did not seem to understand how racing worked in that context, where bard understood and also applied safety margin. Although understand is an odd word to use for LLM
• IIAOPSW 3y ago
  > even though my prompt mentioned nothing coding related. I've noticed this trend before in chatGPT. I once asked it to keep a count of every time I say "how long has it been since I asked this question", and instead it gave me python code for a loop where the user enters input and a counter is incremented each time that phrase appears. I think they've put so much work into the gimmick that the AI can write code, that they have overfit things and it sees coding prompts where it shouldn't.
• devjab 3y ago
  GPT seems to get improvements of trap questions when they reach social popularity. Even the free version of ChatGPT now knows that a kilogram of feathers weighs the same as a kilogram of lead, and it didn’t always know that. I’m not sure these types of prompt tricks are a good way of measuring logic unless Google is also implementing these directly into Bard when the hilarious outputs reach enough traction on social media. I do wonder how OpenAI fix these logical blunders. My biggest issue with both isn’t that they fall into these traps though. It’s that I can get them to tell me long stories about what happens in Horus Heresy books that never actually happened. Whether the info comes from questionable sources or they are just making things up is sort of irrelevant to me, what “scares” me about those conversations is how true the answers sound, and if they are “lying” about the Horus Heresy then what else will they lie about? Don’t get me wrong, GPT now writes virtually all my JSDoc documentation and it continues to impress me when doing so, but I’m very reluctant to use it for actual information. Not only because of my time wasting conversations about the Horus Heresy but also because we’ve had it “invent” C# functions that had never existed in any version of .Net or C# when tasked to solve problems. I just mention the HH as an example because it’s fun to ask GPT why Magnus did nothing/everything wrong during meetings.
  • SgtBastard 3y ago
    > fun to ask GPT why Magnus did nothing/everything wrong during meetings. Do it with Erebus and watch it break the context window ;) Iron within, Brother.
    • devjab 3y ago
      Iron without.
  • berniedurfee 3y ago
    LLMs don’t really ‘know’ anything though, right? It’s a billion monkeys on a billion rigged typewriters. When the output is a correct answer or pleasing sonnet, the monkeys don’t collectively or individually understand the prompt or the response. Humans just tweak the typewriters to make it more likely the output will be more often reasonable. That’s my personal conclusion lately. LLMS will be really cool, really helpful and really dangerous… but I don’t think they’ll be really very close to intelligent.