3 ms·

> without defining what they mean by reasoning and example of reasoning that could prove that someone is reasoning People gave quite a lot of example of ChatGP

> without defining what they mean by reasoning and example of reasoning that could prove that someone is reasoning People gave quite a lot of example of ChatGPT failing to answer questions properly - i.e. fail at reasoning. I think the bare minimum to say AI can reason is for it to be able to use predicate logic.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
You are arguing about something completely different. I am talking about people who say LLM can't reason in the near future and AI is a hype. A good example of falsifiable test is Turing test, which is no longer relevant. What I would like is for people to suggest better tests than Turing test which would prove that a version of AI is reasoning according to their definition.
- worrycue 3y ago
  > I am talking about people who say LLM can't reason in the near future and AI is a hype. Some people like me are just pessimist. Lived long enough to see one snake oiled hype train after another go by. To quote Morpheus from the Matrix, "Show me." > A good example of falsifiable test is Turing test, which is no longer relevant. What I would like is for people to suggest better tests than Turing test which would prove that a version of AI is reasoning according to their definition. Being able to perform predicate logic is falsifiable - as falsifiable as the Turing test at least. We can create a Turing test for predicate logic that has the AI be ask questions (presented in plain English) that require predicate logic to solve. An evaluator (who understands predicate logic) will judge the performance of the AI. If the evaluator can't tell if it's a human or an AI answering the question, the AI passes.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    But GPT 4 can easily do predicate logic, at least much better than most humans if you do chain of thought prompting. Do you have an example where it fails?
    - worrycue 3y ago
      > if you do chain of thought prompting The fact that you have to prompt it along the way means you are doing some of the reasoning for it. BTW have you tried giving it bad prompts along the way to try to confuse it instead of helping it? Being able to spot a bad argument is also an important part of using predicate logic. > Do you have an example where it fails? Frankly, I'm too lazy to come up with a novel problem that definitely isn't in its training data. On a side note, did you read the thread a few days ago about "glitch tokens" in ChatGPT? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36242914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36242914 It really doesn't inspire confidence in its abilities. A regular human visiting r/counting would just go "WTF", figure it's people being weird, and walk away. Exposing ChatGPT to r/counting during training on the other hand, "breaks it". It really shows the limitations of its "reasoning".

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

You are arguing about something completely different. I am talking about people who say LLM can't reason in the near future and AI is a hype. A good example of falsifiable test is Turing test, which is no longer relevant. What I would like is for people to suggest better tests than Turing test which would prove that a version of AI is reasoning according to their definition.

worrycue 3y ago
> I am talking about people who say LLM can't reason in the near future and AI is a hype. Some people like me are just pessimist. Lived long enough to see one snake oiled hype train after another go by. To quote Morpheus from the Matrix, "Show me." > A good example of falsifiable test is Turing test, which is no longer relevant. What I would like is for people to suggest better tests than Turing test which would prove that a version of AI is reasoning according to their definition. Being able to perform predicate logic is falsifiable - as falsifiable as the Turing test at least. We can create a Turing test for predicate logic that has the AI be ask questions (presented in plain English) that require predicate logic to solve. An evaluator (who understands predicate logic) will judge the performance of the AI. If the evaluator can't tell if it's a human or an AI answering the question, the AI passes.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  But GPT 4 can easily do predicate logic, at least much better than most humans if you do chain of thought prompting. Do you have an example where it fails?
  - worrycue 3y ago
    > if you do chain of thought prompting The fact that you have to prompt it along the way means you are doing some of the reasoning for it. BTW have you tried giving it bad prompts along the way to try to confuse it instead of helping it? Being able to spot a bad argument is also an important part of using predicate logic. > Do you have an example where it fails? Frankly, I'm too lazy to come up with a novel problem that definitely isn't in its training data. On a side note, did you read the thread a few days ago about "glitch tokens" in ChatGPT? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36242914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36242914 It really doesn't inspire confidence in its abilities. A regular human visiting r/counting would just go "WTF", figure it's people being weird, and walk away. Exposing ChatGPT to r/counting during training on the other hand, "breaks it". It really shows the limitations of its "reasoning".