3 ms·

Not a technicality. It's like inventing a proper head of government that wasn't there. Also, knowing German chancellors was always easy, so that fact that a ma

Not a technicality. It's like inventing a proper head of government that wasn't there. Also, knowing German chancellors was always easy, so that fact that a machine falls behind any normal dictionary or the German Chancellor's website is poor form. It's like a calculator getting basic addition wrong. I don't want a future full of poorly performing machines.

Kiro 3y ago
He was acting Chancellor. It's like saying a red apple is not an apple. It's a technicality. The fact that we have a completely reasonable explanation to why GPT-4 includes him in the list and you guys still make it sound like the AI is a complete moron is just hilarious to me.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  There is no "Acting Chancellor", that is a poor translation of what the job is. There is only a Chancellor, not an "Acting Chancellor" - you have to trust that the Germans and their institutions kind of know who was Chancellor and who was not. The machine is a complete moron for not being able to get basic data from basic sources right.
  - Kiro 3y ago
    > Scheel became acting Chancellor > Chancellor of Germany, Acting, 7 May 1974 – 16 May 1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      I know, but the German wikipedia gets it right: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel (And so does the German Chancellor: https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/kanzleramt/bundeskanzler-seit-1949 https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/kanzleramt/bundeskanzler-...) There is zero ambiguity about who was Chancellor and who was not.
      - Kiro 3y ago
        It says "geschäftsführender Bundeskanzler". Even on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany he's listed as "Vice Chancellor Walter Scheel served as acting Chancellor from 7 May to 16 May 1974" between 4 and 5. There's obviously some ambiguity to it considering we are two humans discussing this with a claimed discrepancy between English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia, but your conclusion is still that the AI is spitting nonsense.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        There is zero ambiguity under German as law as to who was a Chancellor and who was not. Not a matter of wikipedia etc. The way to be Chancellor is through article 63 of the Grundgesetz, while Scheel was put into the caretaker role via article 69. This explains it a bit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizekanzler_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizekanzler_(Deutschland) - Scheel was only taking on the function, not the office. This kind of giving some machine the benefit of the doubt when in fact there is zero ambiguity is really a path that makes me think we will have mostly machines designed for marketing and other non-critical things.
        Kiro 3y ago
        He's also included in this list between 4 and 5: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeskanzler_(Deutschland)#Deutsche_Bundeskanzler_seit_1949 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeskanzler_(Deutschland)#De... When you need to bring up article 63 and 69 of the Grundgesetz to prove that the claim is ludicrous, maybe the reasonable thing to say instead is "I understand why you might think that".
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        You can say "I consider Scheel to be Chancellor", but that isn't the same as Scheel having been a Chancellor. I honestly don't understand why in situations with a clear ground truth there is a need to debate and why we would want machines to bungle that.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > The machine is a complete moron for not being able to get basic data from basic sources right. I'm just going to point out that you're calling an AI moronic for not getting this right when a bunch of humans are also disagreeing with you. Frankly, this really undermines your case that this is an AI failure.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      What is wrong with me wanting my machines to stick to the actual definitions?
- dllthomas 3y ago
  A "red apple" is an apple that is red. An "acting officeholder" is not an officeholder who is acting, but a person who is acting as if they have the office (... with institutional support - Norton was not acting Emperor). It's a technicality, but a valid technically and it's a technical question. I agree that it's wrong in a relatively small and surprisingly human way, but it's wrong in a way that including a red apple amongst apples is not.

Kiro 3y ago

He was acting Chancellor. It's like saying a red apple is not an apple. It's a technicality. The fact that we have a completely reasonable explanation to why GPT-4 includes him in the list and you guys still make it sound like the AI is a complete moron is just hilarious to me.

RandomLensman 3y ago
There is no "Acting Chancellor", that is a poor translation of what the job is. There is only a Chancellor, not an "Acting Chancellor" - you have to trust that the Germans and their institutions kind of know who was Chancellor and who was not. The machine is a complete moron for not being able to get basic data from basic sources right.
- Kiro 3y ago
  > Scheel became acting Chancellor > Chancellor of Germany, Acting, 7 May 1974 – 16 May 1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    I know, but the German wikipedia gets it right: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel (And so does the German Chancellor: https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/kanzleramt/bundeskanzler-seit-1949 https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/kanzleramt/bundeskanzler-...) There is zero ambiguity about who was Chancellor and who was not.
    - Kiro 3y ago
      It says "geschäftsführender Bundeskanzler". Even on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany he's listed as "Vice Chancellor Walter Scheel served as acting Chancellor from 7 May to 16 May 1974" between 4 and 5. There's obviously some ambiguity to it considering we are two humans discussing this with a claimed discrepancy between English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia, but your conclusion is still that the AI is spitting nonsense.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        There is zero ambiguity under German as law as to who was a Chancellor and who was not. Not a matter of wikipedia etc. The way to be Chancellor is through article 63 of the Grundgesetz, while Scheel was put into the caretaker role via article 69. This explains it a bit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizekanzler_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizekanzler_(Deutschland) - Scheel was only taking on the function, not the office. This kind of giving some machine the benefit of the doubt when in fact there is zero ambiguity is really a path that makes me think we will have mostly machines designed for marketing and other non-critical things.
        Kiro 3y ago
        He's also included in this list between 4 and 5: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeskanzler_(Deutschland)#Deutsche_Bundeskanzler_seit_1949 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeskanzler_(Deutschland)#De... When you need to bring up article 63 and 69 of the Grundgesetz to prove that the claim is ludicrous, maybe the reasonable thing to say instead is "I understand why you might think that".
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        You can say "I consider Scheel to be Chancellor", but that isn't the same as Scheel having been a Chancellor. I honestly don't understand why in situations with a clear ground truth there is a need to debate and why we would want machines to bungle that.
- naasking 3y ago
  > The machine is a complete moron for not being able to get basic data from basic sources right. I'm just going to point out that you're calling an AI moronic for not getting this right when a bunch of humans are also disagreeing with you. Frankly, this really undermines your case that this is an AI failure.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    What is wrong with me wanting my machines to stick to the actual definitions?
dllthomas 3y ago
A "red apple" is an apple that is red. An "acting officeholder" is not an officeholder who is acting, but a person who is acting as if they have the office (... with institutional support - Norton was not acting Emperor). It's a technicality, but a valid technically and it's a technical question. I agree that it's wrong in a relatively small and surprisingly human way, but it's wrong in a way that including a red apple amongst apples is not.