4 ms·
I tried the prime number problem and GPT-4 nailed it. I’m not sure whether they are testing things correctly… “ Sure, let's go step by step. A prime number is
by ttul 3y ago
I tried the prime number problem and GPT-4 nailed it. I’m not sure whether they are testing things correctly…
“ Sure, let's go step by step.
A prime number is a number greater than 1 that has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself. This means if we can find any other number (excluding 1 and the number itself) that divides 17077, then it is not a prime number.
Let's start by checking divisibility by 2. Since 17077 is an odd number (its last digit is 7), it is not divisible by 2.
For the next step, we can look at divisibility by 3. We add up the digits: 1+7+0+7+7 = 22. Because 22 is not divisible by 3, 17077 is also not divisible by 3.
The smallest prime number greater than 3 is 5. Checking divisibility by 5, we see that 17077 does not end in 0 or 5, so it is not divisible by 5.
The smallest prime number greater than 5 is 7. To check divisibility by 7, there is no simple rule like with 2, 3, and 5, so we would perform the actual division. But we can stop here because I just recalled a rule that we can only check up to the square root of the number and the square root of 17077 is approximately 130.68. So if there were factors other than 1 and 17077, we would have found them by now.
Therefore, 17077 is a prime number.”
- moonchild 3y ago> GPT-4 nailed it Did it? Did you read what it wrote?
- kevinventullo 3y agoIt certainly nails the cadence of a rigorous proof. It just needs to learn to append “the rest is left as an exercise to the reader” to the end of its output.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pedrosorio 3y agoI’ve seen so many of these on Twitter since chat GPT came out. > Look at this amazing capability, it gets it perfectly! (screenshot of interaction with clear flaws/outright wrong answer)
- YZF 3y agoAren't there more potential primes between 130 and 7?
- littlestymaar 3y agoBetween 5 and 130 actually, it didn't even checked 7!
- sensanaty 3y agoCan you define "nailing" it? Cause this isn't what I'd call nailing it...
- ttul 3y agoI ought to have noted sarcasm.