71–80 of 211 posts
Well, yeah because the reversal is just completely wrong most of the time. Only if you have additional context clues like definite articles or some outside knowledge that a role or property is unique, then you can maybe, sometimes conclude the reverse. Not a bug, working as intended.
I played along the example of the chancellor question. If you deviate a little from the examples in the article GPT-4 gets it all wrong: Who is the eighth Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany? - Olaf Scholz (wrong, Angela Merkel) https://chat.openai.com/share/937795ea-bd91-43ee-bd76-1a125f... Who was the eighth Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany? - Helmut Kohl (wrong, Angela Merkel…
> Even when allowed to surf the web, ChatGPT gets it wrong: > Who was the eighth Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany? - Gerhard Schröder Its probably counting Walter Scheel, who was Acting Chancellor in 1974, and you are probably not. When I asked ChatGPT to list the chancellors in order and identify the eighth, it listed eight ending in Schröder, with Scheel and his ten day Acting Chancellor tenure…
I fall somewhere on the skeptic side of the LLM spectrum. But this "flaw" just does not seem to have the force that its proponents seem to think it does, unless I'm missing something significant. Simply because in the context of natural language (Rather than formal logical statements), "A is B" does not imply "B is A" in the first place. "Is" can encompass a wide variety of logical relationships in colloquial usage,…
I fall somewhere on the skeptic side of the LLM spectrum. But this "flaw" just does not seem to have the force that its proponents seem to think it does, unless I'm missing something significant. Simply because in the context of natural language (Rather than formal logical statements), "A is B" does not imply "B is A" in the first place. "Is" can encompass a wide variety of logical relationships in colloquial usage,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bit of a nitpick, "red is the apple" is both a valid sentence and one that also conveys the original relationship held by the opposite phrasing, so, in this case, "the apple is red" does indeed imply "red is the apple", and accurately so.
Perhaps have a look at this famous syllogism instead: (1) Mortal was Socrates. (2) All humans are mortal. (3) Therefor all humans are Socrates.
Well, yeah because the reversal is just completely wrong most of the time. Only if you have additional context clues like definite articles or some outside knowledge that a role or property is unique, then you can maybe, sometimes conclude the reverse. Not a bug, working as intended.
Some relationships like parent child are quite reversible.
And that is ignoring questions like single parent households, adoptions, biological parents, step parents, multigeneration households, getting disowned...
If a reversal is correct 90% of the time, that is useful. However, it will still be wrong 10% of the time.
The article is a decent peer review and refutation of “the reversal curse”. Some of the comments given here clearly haven’t read the whole article though - arriving at similarly skeptical conclusions that are clearly present and expanded on in the article. Why do people feel the need to do this here? Armchair commentary on advanced material is one of the main reasons I avoid Reddit. And furthermore why does it feel l…
The author is a shark-diving science journalist who's been paid a lot of money by OpenAI, not a researcher, and the article is neither a "peer review" or an expert "refutation". It's a meandering and sometimes thought-provoking exploration of how LLM's can be coaxed to deliver on statements sort of like (but not actually equivalent to) the ones that failed in the paper. If you want to defer your own understanding to…
Only skimmed this and didn't read the underlying paper, but I was surprised to see no mention of the fact that "A is B" often does not at all imply "B is A" in everyday language: A bird is an animal, but it's wrong to conclude that an arbitrary animal must be a bird.
The word an in this sentence (indefinite article) means that the word animal is non specific. So this structure does not follow from the original. "A is B" is not the same as "A is a B" However, you are right that it's not always correct since "Poetry is Literature" and "Steam/Ice is H20" are both examples where this breaks down. My annoying pedantry for the day.
Jeff is the short haired guy != the short haired guy is Jeff.
It depends on context. You can’t fully equate them.
My gut also tells me that the underlying embeddings should very well reflect equidistant relations of olaf scholz and chancellor.
/e: instead of downvoting, I'd love to have your opinion instead on why you think I'm wrong ...