4 ms·

Neat. So, despite the fact that it looks like you have to pay for ChatGPT Voice mode with video, [0] it doesn't count as an example of it bullshitting on Ch

Neat. So, despite the fact that it looks like you have to pay for ChatGPT Voice mode with video, [0] it doesn't count as an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version) That is, father_phi's use of what seems to be a paid version of ChatGPT to have a bullshit-filled conversation that definitely spans less than four pages doesn't count? [0] The page at [1] declares that the video feature is "Available in ChatGPT Plus, Pro, Business, Enterprise, and Edu on mobile" [1] <https://chatgpt.com/features/voice-with-video/ https://chatgpt.com/features/voice-with-video/>

simianwords 6mo ago
Lets stick to my challenge please - thinking version, find bullshit. If you can't, thats ok. Do you accept then under the constraints that the thinking version doesn't produce bullshit?
- simoncion 6mo ago
  Given aphyr's vocation (and how very lucrative it is), and how years and years of his writing indicates that he's very devoted to getting a correct and complete answer when investigating a question, I find it hard to believe that he's not using a paid version of the LLMs. If I knew him, I'd ask and verify, but I don't, so I won't. > Lets stick to my challenge please... I did. Your challenge was literally: If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? Lets take any example of a text prompt fitting a few pages - it may be a question in science or math or any domain. Can you get it to bullshit? father_phi's two-sentence question about the whether one can use a cup that's closed at the top and open at the bottom definitely counts. Given what I've mentioned about apyhr above, I expect he has already run your challenge on the fanciest-available version and reported on the results in the essay under discussion.
  - simianwords 6mo ago
    > Use the thinking version gpt5.4 (text) and tell me if it bullshits This was what I said. Text! Despite me specifically asking for text, you've shown a voice example. Not sure why? I believe you and I agree that GPT 5.4 thinking on text that fits < 4 pages never bullshits? Then we are good! If we agree on this, I think the post doesn't capture this in spirit.
    - simoncion 6mo ago
      > This was what I said. Text! No, that's what you said after I provided an example of paid ChatGPT emitting complete bullshit from a two sentence prompt. The challenge you issued is at [0]. [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692592>
      - simianwords 6mo ago
        > If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? Lets take any example of a text prompt fitting a few pages - it may be a question in science or math or any domain. Can you get it to bullshit? I have clearly written text prompt here. And I repeated a few times. It’s not my fault you didn’t read it. You are coming across as a bit of a bad faith arguer. In any case, you agree that under these constraints bullshitting doesn’t exist?
        simoncion 6mo ago
        > I have clearly written text prompt here. How do you think the "voice" interface works? It runs speech-to-text on the input and turns the input into text. The LLMs don't decode voice, they work on text. You can see this process in action on many of father_phi's videos. Regardless, I expect that aphyr's reported results are on the very latest publicly-available ChatGPT models.
        simianwords 6mo ago
        Very bad faith arguments. I clearly said text and you disregarded it multiple times and you are still arguing. You've still not given me a single example of it bullshitting 5.4 thinking in text. It shows a lot that you have ignored this multiple times. Unfortunate!
        simoncion 6mo ago
        I'm not sure why you're ignoring aphyr's reports. I'm also unsure why you're ignoring my original statement that having the text of the conversation that lead ChatGPT to bullshit is entirely irrelevant, as being unable to repro the report is even worse for ChatGPT than being able to repro would be. shrug
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]

simianwords 6mo ago

Lets stick to my challenge please - thinking version, find bullshit. If you can't, thats ok. Do you accept then under the constraints that the thinking version doesn't produce bullshit?

simoncion 6mo ago
Given aphyr's vocation (and how very lucrative it is), and how years and years of his writing indicates that he's very devoted to getting a correct and complete answer when investigating a question, I find it hard to believe that he's not using a paid version of the LLMs. If I knew him, I'd ask and verify, but I don't, so I won't. > Lets stick to my challenge please... I did. Your challenge was literally: If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? Lets take any example of a text prompt fitting a few pages - it may be a question in science or math or any domain. Can you get it to bullshit? father_phi's two-sentence question about the whether one can use a cup that's closed at the top and open at the bottom definitely counts. Given what I've mentioned about apyhr above, I expect he has already run your challenge on the fanciest-available version and reported on the results in the essay under discussion.
- simianwords 6mo ago
  > Use the thinking version gpt5.4 (text) and tell me if it bullshits This was what I said. Text! Despite me specifically asking for text, you've shown a voice example. Not sure why? I believe you and I agree that GPT 5.4 thinking on text that fits < 4 pages never bullshits? Then we are good! If we agree on this, I think the post doesn't capture this in spirit.
  - simoncion 6mo ago
    > This was what I said. Text! No, that's what you said after I provided an example of paid ChatGPT emitting complete bullshit from a two sentence prompt. The challenge you issued is at [0]. [0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692592>
    - simianwords 6mo ago
      > If it bullshits so much, you wouldn't have a problem giving me an example of it bullshitting on ChatGPT (paid version)? Lets take any example of a text prompt fitting a few pages - it may be a question in science or math or any domain. Can you get it to bullshit? I have clearly written text prompt here. And I repeated a few times. It’s not my fault you didn’t read it. You are coming across as a bit of a bad faith arguer. In any case, you agree that under these constraints bullshitting doesn’t exist?
      - simoncion 6mo ago
        > I have clearly written text prompt here. How do you think the "voice" interface works? It runs speech-to-text on the input and turns the input into text. The LLMs don't decode voice, they work on text. You can see this process in action on many of father_phi's videos. Regardless, I expect that aphyr's reported results are on the very latest publicly-available ChatGPT models.
        simianwords 6mo ago
        Very bad faith arguments. I clearly said text and you disregarded it multiple times and you are still arguing. You've still not given me a single example of it bullshitting 5.4 thinking in text. It shows a lot that you have ignored this multiple times. Unfortunate!
        simoncion 6mo ago
        I'm not sure why you're ignoring aphyr's reports. I'm also unsure why you're ignoring my original statement that having the text of the conversation that lead ChatGPT to bullshit is entirely irrelevant, as being unable to repro the report is even worse for ChatGPT than being able to repro would be. shrug
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]