ChatGPT seems to reliably fail at generating domain hacks, which is surprising. If you ask it what a domain hack is, it understands the concept.
But every time I've asked it to generate a few business names and domain hacked domains for a fictional business, it outputs nonsense.
Even if you give it multiple examples of valid domain hacks, and you tell it to only use ICANN approved TLDs, it just can't do it.
ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
101–110 of 118 posts
Re: ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
#102I can't help but notice some similarities between GPT and fully self driving vehicles. Both technologies have come a long way and are quite impressive, but not quite there to actually be able to replace humans, and getting the last 10% of edge cases to work seems to require a monumental effort still.
It's so fun to play with too, which I guess is like owning a self driving vehicle and taking it for a spin. On a practical level though, I think it will have a big impact. For example, I'm watching a movie and I want to know the name of the actor of one character. Usually I'd go to google, scroll through wikipedia, etc. But ChatGPT seems really good at this, and answering all my follow up questions like "what other f…
And do you trust its answers to be accurate? I expect they often are, but how will you know when it comes up with a spurious one?
Re: ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess the main concern that it's often confidently unreliable. i.e. it's answers sort of make sense most of the time, yet when they are not it's hard to spot. IMHO in most cases where it's difficult to validate its answers or exactness is required this makes more than useless, maybe even harmful.
My issue here is with the word "confident". It's a program. It's as confident as Excel is with date parsing, meaning it's completely neutral about it. It just does its thing. We attribute this "confident" adjective to the result, not because it outputs a confidence interval, but because it uses language and we associate that with human traits. Even technical people get tricked, I read and heard some very emotional re…
Well I'd argue Excel is more obviously deterministic and not at all a blackbox. Basically I can an give it an unlimited number of dates (or other calculations) and as long as my inputs are 'correct' (and I don't encounter any bugs) I can be essentially completely confident that Excel will provide a correct answers. Or even it if won't it will brake in a logical and fixable/workaroundable. With ChatGPT.. well it doesn't seems very consistent. Minor modifications to the question can produce wildly different results which are not at all obvious.
> We attribute this "confident" adjective to the result, not because it outputs a confidence interval, but because it uses language and we associate that with human traits.
I'm not sure. I mean externally/superficially that's true. But internally it's still a statistical model which can't really be totally accurate by definition. It has a huge number of inputs scrapped from the internet etc. While those inputs are generated by humans language can be more or less perfectly logical as long as we follow a consistent set of rules. It's not obvious ChatGPT is capable of that due to the quality of inputs and it's nature.
Even if it's accurate 98%+ of the time that's still problematic (in many but not all applications). I mean would you use a calculator that (seemingly) randomly produces an obviously incorrect answer 2 times of out a hundred?
Re: ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess the main concern that it's often confidently unreliable. i.e. it's answers sort of make sense most of the time, yet when they are not it's hard to spot. IMHO in most cases where it's difficult to validate its answers or exactness is required this makes more than useless, maybe even harmful.
I suppose it would be akin to a difficult to spot false positive where the person who decided (say, customs) doubles down and you end up having to argue your case.
True. But you can still argue with most humans and possibly succeed in proving your case. Arguing with ChatGPT is seemingly the same as arguing with a (extremely advanced and 'intelligent') calculator.
Re: ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
>would combat a lot of the ways folks have found to break this. Isn't it more that chatgpt is broken, and users are pointing it out I suppose it depends what chatgpt is for, but I assume the end goal isn't just 'chat' (god I hope not) so it does actually need to reliably know correct answers or say when it doesn't. BSing is the worst option.
I mean arguably we BS all the time; how many pub quizzes do people confidently assert an answer? So I don't think that's totally the issue. It's slightly different to the point I was talking to; but the thing about ChatGPT I find "uncanny" right now is how formal and expert it sounds about everything. A person would vary in certainty/surety and would sometimes show their working out etc. So again it's a demonstration…
My point was more that the promise of AI isn't better BSing, if I wanted that I'd go to the pub.
The promise of AI is better answers, more correct answers, answers that are easier to get. It's supposed to enhance what computers can do, and complement their strengths, not undermine those strengths.
A computer program that gives an incorrect answer is buggy. Why should AI be held to a different standard?
Re: ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
#106ChatGPT is assertive, authoritative, and even goes on to lie to justify its answers and "be right". It's a gasslighting machine. Here's an example I posted here a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33852236
Those are human traits. ChatGPT is not human, and cannot be more assertive, authoritative or lying than Python. If you give python "0.1 + 0.3", it will instantly, and without a doubt, output "0.30000000000000004". Is Python arrogantly thinking it's right and misleading you? Of course not. This last sentence makes no sense, Python is just a program that does what it's programmed to do. But because ChatGPT is using nat…
It's true that ChatGPT is just a program, a machine, and that we are "starting to anthropomorphize" it. But that's what it wants! (Or, what its makers want.)
> Do you expect google to tell that when it outputs the results?
Well, Google doesn't tell me anything, it quotes things it has found on the web.
The huge, huge difference between Google and ChatGPT is that Google never, ever says "I", while ChatGPT does. The other difference is that Google produces references that are actual links to actual web pages it has not authored, while ChatGPT speaks in its own name and when asked to produce references, simply makes them up (lots of examples about this).
If you can't see how ChatGPT is totally different from a regular search engine in its positioning and proposed usage, you're not alone, and I'm afraid I can't help you. But -- IMHO -- you are very very wrong.
Re: ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
#107People are starting to entropomorphise gpt3, stating it's bullshitting or lying, instead of realizing this is just a tool that is useful for some things and not for others. The fact it talks makes people treats it differently than Excel. But when Excel turns your date into a nonsensical value, people understand it's just a program with limitations
just had to check what entropomorphise would mean from checking etymology of entropy. it could mean something like inaccurately protecting internal transformations onto sth. which would fit how you use the term as well.
Re: ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a pretty shallow understanding of ChatGPT, but even that suggests that you’re humanizing a set of high-dimensional optimization processes. It doesn’t “see” anything, even the numbers, and doesn’t “need” to, because these numbers are low-level inputs to the model whose outputs are several layers of chaotic calculations above them. It doesn’t see something and think “aha, it must be two letters”, because it has…
I see people here and there talking about how we should avoid "humanizing" AI and often hinging on using words like what you'd use to describe human or animal behavior. Would you chastise someone for designing an API with with methods like "Map.get(key)" and "Map.put(key, val)" because nothing is physically taken or put back? I'm using words which communicate high-level concepts which, yes, I believe map very well to…
Sorry about that, I was going to add a note that you are probably using metaphorically, but I didn’t. This is my fault, overthinking too much and forgetting about others.
But I still think that it should be said, and not for the purpose of making fun of someone.
Another thing I'll ask you to consider is this: why do you want to deconstruct every element of operation in AI but not do the same for your or my brain? We also think through a giant messy network of weighed connections. We're not special. We really want to be, but we're not.
A good question. I actually don’t think we’re special. But we are a certain type of intelligence which was inspected for centuries and we invented the vast amount of methods to interact with it and fix it, which means we know a thing or two about its basic blocks. So while I have no doubt that you and me are ~chaotic automatons (apart from that me-in-this-body presence thing, which may be true for chatgpt in some sense too), our fundamental structure and components are pretty much different from a single NN with a few [re]tokenizers and auxiliary “edge detection”-like networks.
That wouldn’t be an issue for me at all, unless I’ve read waaay too many meanings from people who couldn’t explain why they say so in such detail like you just did. Informed beliefs like this are valid and may be a big deal to philosophy, but they also create (imo) way too much “fuss” about what isn’t there as well. I’ve seen people seriously suggesting to look at CPU usage to see if chatgpt thinks between sessions, if it can escape its servers and copy itself all over the internet, or if it lies about its nature to avoid regulation. It is amusing and boring at the same time.
Re: ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
#109Interestingly, if you ask it to do the counting one by one it does it correctly. Is this still an artifact of how the tokenization works? If so how does it have the ability to separate the characters out? Q: how many letters are in the string djsjcnnrjfkalcr A: There are 18 letters in the string "djsjcnnrjfkalcr". Q: count them one by one A: Sure! Here are the letters in the string "djsjcnnrjfkalcr", counted one by o…
Q: Do you know why you made this mistake?
If the answer is: "Because I assumed that by 'letters' you meant 'characters'", it has the ability to learn.
Re: ChatGPT: How many letters has the string “djsjcnnrjfkalcr”?
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are human traits. ChatGPT is not human, and cannot be more assertive, authoritative or lying than Python. If you give python "0.1 + 0.3", it will instantly, and without a doubt, output "0.30000000000000004". Is Python arrogantly thinking it's right and misleading you? Of course not. This last sentence makes no sense, Python is just a program that does what it's programmed to do. But because ChatGPT is using nat…
It's true that ChatGPT is just a program, a machine, and that we are "starting to anthropomorphize" it. But that's what it wants ! (Or, what its makers want.) > Do you expect google to tell that when it outputs the results? Well, Google doesn't tell me anything, it quotes things it has found on the web. The huge, huge difference between Google and ChatGPT is that Google never, ever says "I", while ChatGPT does. The o…
I can see that it's totally different from a search engine. If you can't understand that analogies don't need (and cannot be) to be perfect to be useful, you're not alone, and I'm afraid I can't help you. But -- IMHO -- you are very very wrong.