6 ms·

It’s not about the results, it’s about its ability to “reason”. Math is about as close to pure reasoning we get so I don’t get the pessimism. If it is bad at m

It’s not about the results, it’s about its ability to “reason”. Math is about as close to pure reasoning we get so I don’t get the pessimism. If it is bad at math and can’t be taught, then you have a fundamental problem. It’s a matter of time before this limit gets hit in other domains.

FeepingCreature 3y ago
In my experience, it can reason usably well but acts like it has dyscalculia. It'll set up a proper algorithm, step through it and trip over digits.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "It'll set up a proper algorithm, step through it and trip over digits." Or it is just pretending to do so. And since it pretends, of course it trips over all small things as it does not understand them.
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    I don't think you can pretend to properly describe and evaluate an algorithm, anymore than you can pretend to solve a riddle - the answer is either right or it isn't. And in this case, the shape of the answer is often right; it just makes ... ordinary errors. Ironically, the AI is a lot better at high-level thinking than correct calculation.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "Ironically, the AI is a lot better at high-level thinking than correct calculation." That would be actually a human like feature .. except I do not consider what LLMs are doing as thinking.
- throwaway4aday 3y ago
  Yes and the reason it trips over digits is because those digits wind up being tokenized in ways that seem unexpected to us and would produce the same difficulty if we were presented with them: 100,000 + 987 - 1444 * 25,945.842 / 0.0042 becomes "100" one hundred "," comma "000" triple zero " +" space plus " 9" space nine "87" eighty seven " -" space minus " 14" space 14 "44" forty four " *" space times " 25" space twenty five "," comma "9" nine "45" forty five "." period "8" eight "42" forty two " /" space divide " 0" zero "." period "00" double zero "42" forty two Now imagine someone reading that to you over the phone once and asking you to do the math in your head and you aren't allowed to use paper and pencil and you have to get it right the first time.
wizofaus 3y ago
This seems fair enough to me. That ChatGPT currently struggles with certain types of maths problems points to reasonably fundamental shortcomings in what otherwise appears to have the beginnings of a general purpose reasoning engine (whether you consider it AGI or not), and I'm willing to bet extraordinarily clever minds are working hard on trying to address those shortcomings.
- firewolf34 3y ago
  I don't think that trying to shoehorn LLM into being AGI is the right path. Maybe some are trying to achieve this, or are hoping for this... but IMO this is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's definitely an element in the overall puzzle, I think we can all agree, though. Even so, rather than warping this hammer to also screw in a bolt, why not combine it with another tool more fit for the job?
orange_fritter 3y ago
Your thinking is very emotional and shows your inability to understand that "conversational output" is basically an accidental side-effect of a complex tool that just replicates our speech without understanding what it is saying. Through continuous use, I have found that it does not "reason". That doesn't mean it's not valuable in many ways, and I have found it to be very helpful in a multitude of diverse applications, including helping me reflect on my own life through my own interpretations of its output. It's also a great interface for JSTOR, wikipedia, and basically any language learning. I'm having a hard time making the jump from "this must be a calculator" to "this must be a philosopher" to be useful. When did we ever have those requirements for a tool? This tool is just not made for math. Most of its logic processing abilities seem to surpass mine if I am only given 5 minutes to understand a problem. If you understand the tool, you will get the most out of it. Stop anthropomorphizing it, and stop pretending that it can't generate both highly beneficial or highly harmful content simply because it doesn't have a soul/d*ck or whatever.

FeepingCreature 3y ago

In my experience, it can reason usably well but acts like it has dyscalculia. It'll set up a proper algorithm, step through it and trip over digits.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"It'll set up a proper algorithm, step through it and trip over digits." Or it is just pretending to do so. And since it pretends, of course it trips over all small things as it does not understand them.
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  I don't think you can pretend to properly describe and evaluate an algorithm, anymore than you can pretend to solve a riddle - the answer is either right or it isn't. And in this case, the shape of the answer is often right; it just makes ... ordinary errors. Ironically, the AI is a lot better at high-level thinking than correct calculation.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "Ironically, the AI is a lot better at high-level thinking than correct calculation." That would be actually a human like feature .. except I do not consider what LLMs are doing as thinking.
throwaway4aday 3y ago
Yes and the reason it trips over digits is because those digits wind up being tokenized in ways that seem unexpected to us and would produce the same difficulty if we were presented with them: 100,000 + 987 - 1444 * 25,945.842 / 0.0042 becomes "100" one hundred "," comma "000" triple zero " +" space plus " 9" space nine "87" eighty seven " -" space minus " 14" space 14 "44" forty four " *" space times " 25" space twenty five "," comma "9" nine "45" forty five "." period "8" eight "42" forty two " /" space divide " 0" zero "." period "00" double zero "42" forty two Now imagine someone reading that to you over the phone once and asking you to do the math in your head and you aren't allowed to use paper and pencil and you have to get it right the first time.

wizofaus 3y ago

This seems fair enough to me. That ChatGPT currently struggles with certain types of maths problems points to reasonably fundamental shortcomings in what otherwise appears to have the beginnings of a general purpose reasoning engine (whether you consider it AGI or not), and I'm willing to bet extraordinarily clever minds are working hard on trying to address those shortcomings.

firewolf34 3y ago
I don't think that trying to shoehorn LLM into being AGI is the right path. Maybe some are trying to achieve this, or are hoping for this... but IMO this is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's definitely an element in the overall puzzle, I think we can all agree, though. Even so, rather than warping this hammer to also screw in a bolt, why not combine it with another tool more fit for the job?

orange_fritter 3y ago

Your thinking is very emotional and shows your inability to understand that "conversational output" is basically an accidental side-effect of a complex tool that just replicates our speech without understanding what it is saying. Through continuous use, I have found that it does not "reason". That doesn't mean it's not valuable in many ways, and I have found it to be very helpful in a multitude of diverse applications, including helping me reflect on my own life through my own interpretations of its output. It's also a great interface for JSTOR, wikipedia, and basically any language learning. I'm having a hard time making the jump from "this must be a calculator" to "this must be a philosopher" to be useful. When did we ever have those requirements for a tool? This tool is just not made for math. Most of its logic processing abilities seem to surpass mine if I am only given 5 minutes to understand a problem. If you understand the tool, you will get the most out of it. Stop anthropomorphizing it, and stop pretending that it can't generate both highly beneficial or highly harmful content simply because it doesn't have a soul/d*ck or whatever.