5 ms·

So it isn’t a “fact” that the built in Python function that tests whether a string ends with a substring is “endswith”? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell

So it isn’t a “fact” that the built in Python function that tests whether a string ends with a substring is “endswith”? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect If you know that a source isn’t to be believed in an area you know about, why would you trust that source in an area you don’t know about? Another funny anecdote, ChatGPT just got the Gell-Man effect wrong. https://chatgpt.com/share/68a0b7af-5e40-8010-b1e3-ee9ff3c8cb6b https://chatgpt.com/share/68a0b7af-5e40-8010-b1e3-ee9ff3c8cb...

simianwords 1y ago
It got it right with thinking which was the challenge I posed. https://chatgpt.com/share/68a0b897-f8dc-800b-8799-9be2a8ad5433 https://chatgpt.com/share/68a0b897-f8dc-800b-8799-9be2a8ad54...
- OnlineGladiator 1y ago
  The point you're missing is it's not always right. Cherry-picking examples doesn't really bolster your point. Obviously it works for you (or at least you think it does), but I can confidently say it's fucking god-awful for me.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    Am I really the one cherry picking? Please read the thread.
    - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
      Yes. If someone gives an example of it not working, and you reply "but that example worked for me" then you're cherry picking when it works. Just because it worked for you does not mean it works for other people. If I ask ChatGPT a question and it gives me a wrong answer, ChatGPT is the fucking problem.
      - simianwords 1y ago
        The poster didn't use "thinking" model. That was my original challenge!! Why don't you try the original prompt using thinking model and see if I'm cherry picking?
        OnlineGladiator 1y ago
        Every time I use ChatGPT I become incredibly frustrated with how fucking awful it is. I've used it more than enough, time and time again (just try the new model, bro!), to know that I fucking hate it. If it works for you, cool. I think it's dogshit.
        simianwords 1y ago
        Share your examples so that it can be useful to everyone
        ninetyninenine 1y ago
        Objectively he didn't cherry pick. He responded to the person and it got it right when he used the "thinking" model WHICH he did specify in his original comment. Why don't you stick to the topic rather than just declaring it's utter dog shit. Nobody cares about your "opinion" and everyone is trying to converge on a general ground truth no matter how fuzzy it is.
        OnlineGladiator 1y ago
        All anybody is doing here is sharing their opinion unless you're quoting benchmarks. My opinion is just as useless as yours, it's just some find mine more interesting and some find yours more interesting. How do you expect to find a ground truth from a non-deterministic system using anecdata?
        glenstein 1y ago
        This isn't a people having different opinions thing, this is you overlooking specific caveats and talking past comments that you're not understanding. They weren't cherry picking, and they made specific qualifications about the circumstances where it behaves as expected, and your replies keep losing track of those details.
  - glenstein 1y ago
    >The point you're missing is it's not always right. That was never their argument. And it's not cherry picking to make an argument that there's a definable of examples where it returns broadly consistent and accurate information that they invite anyone to test. They're making a legitimate point and you're strawmanning it and randomly pointing to your own personal anecdotes, and I don't think you're paying attention to the qualifications they're making about what it's useful for.
cdrini 1y ago
I sometimes feel like we throw around the word fact too often. If I misspell a wrd, does that mean I have committed a factual inaccuracy? Since the wrd is explicitly spelled a certain way in the dictionary?

simianwords 1y ago

It got it right with thinking which was the challenge I posed. https://chatgpt.com/share/68a0b897-f8dc-800b-8799-9be2a8ad5433 https://chatgpt.com/share/68a0b897-f8dc-800b-8799-9be2a8ad54...

OnlineGladiator 1y ago
The point you're missing is it's not always right. Cherry-picking examples doesn't really bolster your point. Obviously it works for you (or at least you think it does), but I can confidently say it's fucking god-awful for me.
- simianwords 1y ago
  Am I really the one cherry picking? Please read the thread.
  - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
    Yes. If someone gives an example of it not working, and you reply "but that example worked for me" then you're cherry picking when it works. Just because it worked for you does not mean it works for other people. If I ask ChatGPT a question and it gives me a wrong answer, ChatGPT is the fucking problem.
    - simianwords 1y ago
      The poster didn't use "thinking" model. That was my original challenge!! Why don't you try the original prompt using thinking model and see if I'm cherry picking?
      - OnlineGladiator 1y ago
        Every time I use ChatGPT I become incredibly frustrated with how fucking awful it is. I've used it more than enough, time and time again (just try the new model, bro!), to know that I fucking hate it. If it works for you, cool. I think it's dogshit.
        simianwords 1y ago
        Share your examples so that it can be useful to everyone
        ninetyninenine 1y ago
        Objectively he didn't cherry pick. He responded to the person and it got it right when he used the "thinking" model WHICH he did specify in his original comment. Why don't you stick to the topic rather than just declaring it's utter dog shit. Nobody cares about your "opinion" and everyone is trying to converge on a general ground truth no matter how fuzzy it is.
        OnlineGladiator 1y ago
        All anybody is doing here is sharing their opinion unless you're quoting benchmarks. My opinion is just as useless as yours, it's just some find mine more interesting and some find yours more interesting. How do you expect to find a ground truth from a non-deterministic system using anecdata?
        glenstein 1y ago
        This isn't a people having different opinions thing, this is you overlooking specific caveats and talking past comments that you're not understanding. They weren't cherry picking, and they made specific qualifications about the circumstances where it behaves as expected, and your replies keep losing track of those details.
- glenstein 1y ago
  >The point you're missing is it's not always right. That was never their argument. And it's not cherry picking to make an argument that there's a definable of examples where it returns broadly consistent and accurate information that they invite anyone to test. They're making a legitimate point and you're strawmanning it and randomly pointing to your own personal anecdotes, and I don't think you're paying attention to the qualifications they're making about what it's useful for.

cdrini 1y ago

I sometimes feel like we throw around the word fact too often. If I misspell a wrd, does that mean I have committed a factual inaccuracy? Since the wrd is explicitly spelled a certain way in the dictionary?