3 ms·

Would it convince you if we use the GPT Pro api and explicitly not allow tool access? Is that enough to falsify?

by simianwords 9mo ago

jibal 9mo ago
It's not falsifiable because it's not false.
- simianwords 9mo ago
  That’s not falsifiable means
  - jibal 9mo ago
    I know what falsifiable means--you're misusing it and I simply adopted your misuse. A claim is falsifiable or not ... it can't be made falsifiable. The way you're using it is "Can we come up with a test to show that it's false"--no, we can't, because it's not false.
    - simianwords 9mo ago
      How do you know it’s not false? If one had to prove that it is false, what would you have to do?
      - jibal 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        simianwords 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        dang 9mo ago
        Please don't cross into posting like this, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        dang 9mo ago
        Please don't cross into posting like this, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rybosworld 9mo ago
No, it wouldn't be enough to falsify. This isn't an experiment a consumer of the models can actually run. If you have a chance to read the article I linked, it is difficult even for the model maintainers (openai, anthropic, etc.) to look into the model and see what it actually used in it's reasoning process. The models will purposefully hide information about how they reasoned. And they will ignore instructions without telling you. The problem really isn't that LLM's can't get math/arithmetic right sometimes. They certainly can. The problem is that there's a very high probability that they will get the math wrong. Python or similar tools was the answer to the inconsistency.
- simianwords 9mo ago
  What do you mean? You can explicitly restrict access to the tools. You are factually incorrect here.
  - rybosworld 9mo ago
    I believe you're referring to the tools array? https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/tools/ https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/tools/ This is external tools that you are allowing the model to have access to. There is a suite of internal tools that the model has access to regardless. The external python tool is there so it can provide the user with python code that they can see. You can read a bit more about the distinction between the internal and external tool capabilities here: https://community.openai.com/t/fun-with-gpt-5-code-interpreter-and-why-it-likely-fails-to-deliver-files-in-many-instructed-cases/1356685 https://community.openai.com/t/fun-with-gpt-5-code-interpret... "I should explain that both the “python” and “python_user_visible” tools execute Python code and are stateful. The “python” tool is for internal calculations and won’t show outputs to the user, while “python_user_visible” is meant for code that users can see, like file generation and plots." But really the most important thing, is that we as end-users cannot with any certainty know if the model used python, or didn't. That's what the alignment faking article describes.
    - simianwords 9mo ago
chickenimprint 9mo ago
As far as I know, you can't disable the python interpreter. It's part of the reasoning mode. If you ask ChatGPT, it will confirm that it uses the python interpreter to do arithmetic on large numbers. To you, that should be convincing.

Would it convince you if we use the GPT Pro api and explicitly not allow tool access? Is that enough to falsify?

jibal 9mo ago

It's not falsifiable because it's not false.

simianwords 9mo ago
That’s not falsifiable means
- jibal 9mo ago
  I know what falsifiable means--you're misusing it and I simply adopted your misuse. A claim is falsifiable or not ... it can't be made falsifiable. The way you're using it is "Can we come up with a test to show that it's false"--no, we can't, because it's not false.
  - simianwords 9mo ago
    How do you know it’s not false? If one had to prove that it is false, what would you have to do?
    - jibal 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - simianwords 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        dang 9mo ago
        Please don't cross into posting like this, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - dang 9mo ago
        Please don't cross into posting like this, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rybosworld 9mo ago

No, it wouldn't be enough to falsify. This isn't an experiment a consumer of the models can actually run. If you have a chance to read the article I linked, it is difficult even for the model maintainers (openai, anthropic, etc.) to look into the model and see what it actually used in it's reasoning process. The models will purposefully hide information about how they reasoned. And they will ignore instructions without telling you. The problem really isn't that LLM's can't get math/arithmetic right sometimes. They certainly can. The problem is that there's a very high probability that they will get the math wrong. Python or similar tools was the answer to the inconsistency.

simianwords 9mo ago
What do you mean? You can explicitly restrict access to the tools. You are factually incorrect here.
- rybosworld 9mo ago
  I believe you're referring to the tools array? https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/tools/ https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/tools/ This is external tools that you are allowing the model to have access to. There is a suite of internal tools that the model has access to regardless. The external python tool is there so it can provide the user with python code that they can see. You can read a bit more about the distinction between the internal and external tool capabilities here: https://community.openai.com/t/fun-with-gpt-5-code-interpreter-and-why-it-likely-fails-to-deliver-files-in-many-instructed-cases/1356685 https://community.openai.com/t/fun-with-gpt-5-code-interpret... "I should explain that both the “python” and “python_user_visible” tools execute Python code and are stateful. The “python” tool is for internal calculations and won’t show outputs to the user, while “python_user_visible” is meant for code that users can see, like file generation and plots." But really the most important thing, is that we as end-users cannot with any certainty know if the model used python, or didn't. That's what the alignment faking article describes.
  - simianwords 9mo ago

chickenimprint 9mo ago

As far as I know, you can't disable the python interpreter. It's part of the reasoning mode. If you ask ChatGPT, it will confirm that it uses the python interpreter to do arithmetic on large numbers. To you, that should be convincing.