4 ms·

> their realization created a vivid mental image of the event unfolding in that space, which made the story feel more immersive. Glad that ChatGPT, probably li

> their realization created a vivid mental image of the event unfolding in that space, which made the story feel more immersive. Glad that ChatGPT, probably like GP themselves, is a visualizer and actually can create a "vivid mental image" of something. For those of us with aphantasia, that is not a thing. Myself, I too was mighty confused by the text, which read literally like a time travel story, and was only missing a cat and tomorrow's newspaper.

dambi0 2y ago
Isn’t it at least equally likely that one would be more prone to confusion if one was a visual thinker? I don’t think we can infer anythin about how LLMs think based on this.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Right. I'm not claiming the LLM has visual imagination - I suspect that OP has it, and that ChatGPT was trained on enough text from visual thinkers implicitly conveying their experience of the world, that it's now able to correctly interpret writing like that of OP's.
  - Sophira 2y ago
    As a visual thinker myself, I was also confused by how the story was presented. ChatGPT did better than me.
    - Applejinx 2y ago
      You could also say that ChatGPT erred similarly to the original writer, who was unclear and misleading about events. We needn't act like they share some grand enlightenment. It's just not well expressed. ChatGPT's output is also frequently not well expressed and not well thought out.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        There's many more ways to err than to get something right. ChatGPT getting OP right where many people here didn't tells us it's more likely that there is a particular style of writing/thinking that is not obvious to everyone, but ChatGPT can identify and understand, rather than just both OP and ChatGPT accidentally making exactly the same error.
        Applejinx 2y ago
        Why would that be more likely? Seems like OP and ChatGPT (which is just many people of different skill levels) might easily make the same failure to communicate. Many failures of ChatGPT are failures to communicate or to convey structured thinking.
        TeMPOraL 2y ago
        Because out of all possible communication failures OP and ChatGPT could make, them both making the exact same error, in a way that makes the two errors cancel out, is extremely unlikely.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    It's a strange feeling, watching the AI get better at language comprehension than me. I made a similar mistake on the original comment as you (I read it as "Ulbricht returned to the cafe, he actually sat down right in front of me while I was reading the story about his previous arrest here, and that's when I realised it was the same place"), and also thought you were saying that you think ChatGPT has a visual "imagination" inside. (I don't know if it does or doesn't, but given the "o" in "4o" is supposed to make it multi-modal, my default assumption is that 4o can visualise things… but then, that's also my default assumption about humans, and you being aphantasic shows this is not necessarily so).
xerox13ster 2y ago
Legitimately and I say this was absolutely no shade intended. This is a reading comprehension problem, nothing to do with aphantasia. He clearly states that he was reading an article, he uses past tense verbs when referring to Ross, and to the events spelled out in the article. If you somehow thought that he could be reading an article that ostensibly has to be describing a past event as he was seeing it in real time that is a logic flaw on you. It has nothing to do with what you can or cannot visualize. All you have to do is ask yourself could he have been reading an article about Ross’s arrest while watching it? Since nobody can violate the causality of space time the answer is no. This isn’t just you this is everybody in this thread who is reading this and going this is a little confusing. No it’s very clearly him speaking about a past experience reading an article about a past event.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  I realised what was going on, but I did a double-take at: > Then Ulbricht walked into the public library and sat down at the table directly in front of me The problem is that two past events are being described, so tense alone cannot distinguish them. Cut the readers some slack; the writing could have been better.
  - adinisom 2y ago
    Done for effect: it felt to the OP as if it was the present so the writing conveys that, while elsewhere making it clear the arrest was not the present.
  - themdonuts 2y ago
    Yes, same here.
  - whycome 2y ago
    To follow the tense and delivery of the previous sentence, it would have been clearest to say "Then when Ulbricht..." That "then" always does a lot of heavy lifting in English prose.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
hackinthebochs 2y ago
Feel the AGI
mod50ack 2y ago
One, ChatGPT isn't a "visualizer." Two, I have aphantasia and didn't picture anything. I got it the first time without any confusion. Are you seriously asking ChatGPT to read things for you? No wonder your reading comprehension is cooked. Don't blame aphantasia.
- beacon294 2y ago
  Reducing any judgment out of your comment, you have to admit that the commenter's action was a successful comprehension strategy they learned from and can use in the future without chatgpt.

dambi0 2y ago

Isn’t it at least equally likely that one would be more prone to confusion if one was a visual thinker? I don’t think we can infer anythin about how LLMs think based on this.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Right. I'm not claiming the LLM has visual imagination - I suspect that OP has it, and that ChatGPT was trained on enough text from visual thinkers implicitly conveying their experience of the world, that it's now able to correctly interpret writing like that of OP's.
- Sophira 2y ago
  As a visual thinker myself, I was also confused by how the story was presented. ChatGPT did better than me.
  - Applejinx 2y ago
    You could also say that ChatGPT erred similarly to the original writer, who was unclear and misleading about events. We needn't act like they share some grand enlightenment. It's just not well expressed. ChatGPT's output is also frequently not well expressed and not well thought out.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      There's many more ways to err than to get something right. ChatGPT getting OP right where many people here didn't tells us it's more likely that there is a particular style of writing/thinking that is not obvious to everyone, but ChatGPT can identify and understand, rather than just both OP and ChatGPT accidentally making exactly the same error.
      - Applejinx 2y ago
        Why would that be more likely? Seems like OP and ChatGPT (which is just many people of different skill levels) might easily make the same failure to communicate. Many failures of ChatGPT are failures to communicate or to convey structured thinking.
        TeMPOraL 2y ago
        Because out of all possible communication failures OP and ChatGPT could make, them both making the exact same error, in a way that makes the two errors cancel out, is extremely unlikely.
- ben_w 2y ago
  It's a strange feeling, watching the AI get better at language comprehension than me. I made a similar mistake on the original comment as you (I read it as "Ulbricht returned to the cafe, he actually sat down right in front of me while I was reading the story about his previous arrest here, and that's when I realised it was the same place"), and also thought you were saying that you think ChatGPT has a visual "imagination" inside. (I don't know if it does or doesn't, but given the "o" in "4o" is supposed to make it multi-modal, my default assumption is that 4o can visualise things… but then, that's also my default assumption about humans, and you being aphantasic shows this is not necessarily so).

xerox13ster 2y ago

Legitimately and I say this was absolutely no shade intended. This is a reading comprehension problem, nothing to do with aphantasia. He clearly states that he was reading an article, he uses past tense verbs when referring to Ross, and to the events spelled out in the article. If you somehow thought that he could be reading an article that ostensibly has to be describing a past event as he was seeing it in real time that is a logic flaw on you. It has nothing to do with what you can or cannot visualize. All you have to do is ask yourself could he have been reading an article about Ross’s arrest while watching it? Since nobody can violate the causality of space time the answer is no. This isn’t just you this is everybody in this thread who is reading this and going this is a little confusing. No it’s very clearly him speaking about a past experience reading an article about a past event.

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
I realised what was going on, but I did a double-take at: > Then Ulbricht walked into the public library and sat down at the table directly in front of me The problem is that two past events are being described, so tense alone cannot distinguish them. Cut the readers some slack; the writing could have been better.
- adinisom 2y ago
  Done for effect: it felt to the OP as if it was the present so the writing conveys that, while elsewhere making it clear the arrest was not the present.
- themdonuts 2y ago
  Yes, same here.
- whycome 2y ago
  To follow the tense and delivery of the previous sentence, it would have been clearest to say "Then when Ulbricht..." That "then" always does a lot of heavy lifting in English prose.
JohnMakin 2y ago

hackinthebochs 2y ago

Feel the AGI

mod50ack 2y ago

One, ChatGPT isn't a "visualizer." Two, I have aphantasia and didn't picture anything. I got it the first time without any confusion. Are you seriously asking ChatGPT to read things for you? No wonder your reading comprehension is cooked. Don't blame aphantasia.

beacon294 2y ago
Reducing any judgment out of your comment, you have to admit that the commenter's action was a successful comprehension strategy they learned from and can use in the future without chatgpt.