4 ms·

> Neither can many humans... 1) GPT-5 is advertised as "PhD-level intelligence". So, I take OpenAI (and anyone else who advertises their bots with language lik

> Neither can many humans... 1) GPT-5 is advertised as "PhD-level intelligence". So, I take OpenAI (and anyone else who advertises their bots with language like this) at their word about the bot's capabilities and constrain the set of humans I use for comparison to those who also have PhD-level intelligence. 2) Any human who has been introduced to long addition will absolutely be able to compute the sum of two whole numbers of arbitrary length. You may have to provide them a sufficiently strong incentive to actually do it long-hand, but they absolutely are capable because the method is not difficult. I'm fairly certain that most adult humans [0] (regardless of whether or not they have PhD-level intelligence) find the method to be trivial, if tedious. [0] And many human children!

gjm11 1y ago
I have a PhD, in mathematics, from a top university. If you give me, say, 100 10-digit numbers to add up and tell me to do the job in my head then I will probably get the answer wrong. Of course, if you give me 100 10-digit numbers to add up and let me use a calculator, or pencil and paper, then I will probably get it right. Same for, say, two 100-digit numbers. (I can probably get that one right without tools if you obligingly print them monospaced and put one of them immediately above the other where I can look at them.) Anyway, the premise here seems to be simply false. I just gave ChatGPT and Claude (free versions of both; ChatGPT5, whatever specific model it routed my query to, and Sonnet 4) a list of 100 random 10-digit numbers to add up, with a prompt encouraging them to be careful about it but nothing beyond that (e.g., no specific strategies or tools to use), and both of them got the right total. Then I did the same with two 100-digit numbers and both of them got that right too.
- Kuinox 1y ago
  https://i.imgur.com/l2elIAv.png https://i.imgur.com/l2elIAv.png Difficulty is the amount of digits, small models struggle with 10 digits numbers, gemini and gpt-5 are very good recent models, gemini start failing before 40 digits, GPT-5 (the one by api, the online chat version is worse and I didn't tested it) can do more than 120 digits (at this point it's pointless to test for more).
  - gjm11 1y ago
    My tests of GPT-5 were using the online chat version. Of course, I only ran it once; I can't at all rule out the possibility that sometimes it gets it wrong. But, again, the same is true of humans.
    - Kuinox 1y ago
      The online version is way worse, it also have a router that could route it to a random model.

gjm11 1y ago

I have a PhD, in mathematics, from a top university. If you give me, say, 100 10-digit numbers to add up and tell me to do the job in my head then I will probably get the answer wrong. Of course, if you give me 100 10-digit numbers to add up and let me use a calculator, or pencil and paper, then I will probably get it right. Same for, say, two 100-digit numbers. (I can probably get that one right without tools if you obligingly print them monospaced and put one of them immediately above the other where I can look at them.) Anyway, the premise here seems to be simply false. I just gave ChatGPT and Claude (free versions of both; ChatGPT5, whatever specific model it routed my query to, and Sonnet 4) a list of 100 random 10-digit numbers to add up, with a prompt encouraging them to be careful about it but nothing beyond that (e.g., no specific strategies or tools to use), and both of them got the right total. Then I did the same with two 100-digit numbers and both of them got that right too.

Kuinox 1y ago
https://i.imgur.com/l2elIAv.png https://i.imgur.com/l2elIAv.png Difficulty is the amount of digits, small models struggle with 10 digits numbers, gemini and gpt-5 are very good recent models, gemini start failing before 40 digits, GPT-5 (the one by api, the online chat version is worse and I didn't tested it) can do more than 120 digits (at this point it's pointless to test for more).
- gjm11 1y ago
  My tests of GPT-5 were using the online chat version. Of course, I only ran it once; I can't at all rule out the possibility that sometimes it gets it wrong. But, again, the same is true of humans.
  - Kuinox 1y ago
    The online version is way worse, it also have a router that could route it to a random model.