21 ms·
I think what it shows that it has minimal "understanding" of the problem - otherwise such small variations wouldn't pose a challenge. Training it to handle thes
by mupuff1234 2y ago
I think what it shows that it has minimal "understanding" of the problem - otherwise such small variations wouldn't pose a challenge. Training it to handle these specific small variations doesn't change that.
It's good in automation, not understanding.
- Lerc 2y agoIf it were a complete failure on variations I would be inclined to agree. Instead it was a 30% drop in performance. I would characterise that as limited understanding.
- sirolimus 2y agoFully agree with this
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cgriswald 2y agoMy guess is that what’s understood isn’t various parts of solving the problem but various aspects of the expected response. I see this more akin to a human faking their way through a conversation.
- CamperBob2 2y agoI see this more akin to a human faking their way through a conversation. That works in English class. Try it in a math class and you'll get a much lower grade than ChatGPT will.