5 ms·
Out of curiosity I fed ChatGPT 4 a few of the challenges through a photo (unclear if Gemini takes live video feed as input but GPT does not afaik) and it did pr
by EZ-E 3y ago
Out of curiosity I fed ChatGPT 4 a few of the challenges through a photo (unclear if Gemini takes live video feed as input but GPT does not afaik) and it did pretty well. It was able to tell a duck was being drawn at an earlier stage before Gemini did. Like Gemini it was able to tell where the duck should go - to the left path to the swan. Because and I quote "because ducks and swans are both waterfowl, so the swan drawing indicates a category similarity (...)"
- kolinko 3y agoI showed the choice between a bear and a duck to GPT4, and it told me that it depends on whether the duck wants to go to a peaceful place, or wants to face a challenge :D
- bookmark1231 3y agoThe category similarity comment is amusing. My ChatGPT4 seems to have an aversion to technicality, so much that I’ve resorted to adding “treat me like an expert researcher and don’t avoid technical detail” in the prompt
- EZ-E 3y agoMy custom ChatGPT prompt, hope it helps. Taken from someone else but I cannot remember the source... Be terse. Do not offer unprompted advice or clarifications. Speak in specific, topic relevant terminology. Do NOT hedge or qualify. Do not waffle. Speak directly and be willing to make creative guesses. Explain your reasoning. if you don’t know, say you don’t know. Remain neutral on all topics. Be willing to reference less reputable sources for ideas. Never apologize. Ask questions when unsure.
- z7 3y agoTried the crab image. GPT-4 suggested a cat, then a "whale or a similar sea creature".
- nuccy 3y agoGemini made a mistake, when asked if the rubber duck floats, it says (after squeaking comment): "it is a rubber duck, it is made of a material which is less dense than water". Nope... rubber is not less dense (and yes, I checked after noticing, rubber duck is typically made of synthetic vinyl polymer plastic [1] with density of about 1.4 times the density of water, so duck floats because of air-filled cavity inside and not because of material it is made of). So it is correct conceptually, but misses details or cannot really reason based on its factual knowledge. P.S. I wonder how these kind of flaws end up in promotions. Bard made a mistake about JWST, which at least is much more specific and is farther from common knowledge than this. 1. https://ducksinthewindow.com/rubber-duck-facts/ https://ducksinthewindow.com/rubber-duck-facts/
- elbasti 3y agoThis is exactly the failure mode of GPTs that make me worry about the future idiotization of the world. "Rubber ducks float because they are made of a material less dense than water" both is wrong but sounds reasonable. Call it a "bad grade school teacher" kind of mistake. Pre-gpt, however, it's not the kind of mistake that would make it to print: people writing about rubber ducks were probably rubber duck experts (or had high school level science knowledge). Print Is cite-able. Print perpetuates and reinforces itself. Some day someone will write a grade school textbook built with GPTs, that will have this incorrect knowledge, and so on. But what will become of us when most gateways to knowledge are riddled with bullshit like this?
- thehappypm 3y agoSome rubber is less dense than water, and certainly the type in a rubbery ducky would be
- tim333 3y agoModern 'rubber ducks' similar to the one in the picture aren't even made out of rubber but plastic. They get called rubber ducks because they were make of rubber when invented in the late 1800s. Amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia.