3 ms·

I think maybe this is where the polarisation of those who find chatGPT useful and those who don't comes from. In this context, the number of r's in strawberry i

I think maybe this is where the polarisation of those who find chatGPT useful and those who don't comes from. In this context, the number of r's in strawberry is not a fact: its a calculation. I would expect AI to be able to spell a common word 100% of the time, but not to be able to count letters. I don't think in the summary of human knowledge that has been digitised there are that many people saying 'how many r's are there in strawberry', and if they are I think that the common reply would be '2', since the context is based on the second r. (people confuse strawbery and strawberry, not strrawberry and strawberry). Your apples question is the same, its not knowledge, it's a calculation, it's intelligence. The only time you're going to get intelligence from AI at the moment is to ask a question that a significantly large number of people have already answered.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
True, but that just goes to show how brittle these models are - how shallow the dividing line is between primary facts present (hopefully consistently so) in the training set, and derived facts that are potentially more suspect. To make things worse, I don't think we can even assume that primary facts are always going to be represented in abstract semantic terms independent of source text. The model may have been trained on a fact but still fail to reliably recall/predict it because of "lookup failure" (model fails to reduce query text to necessary abstract lookup key).