151–160 of 287 posts
Has a limit, after 5 ish questions I got "You are out of free messages until 10 PM" which I have never had on chatgpt
Prompt:
Joe drove Sue to university. Afterwards he drove home again and drank a tea with her in the kitchen.
**
There seems to be some inconsistency in the scenario you've described. Let me break it down:
1. Joe drove Sue to university.
2. Afterwards, Joe drove home.
3. Joe drank tea with Sue in the kitchen.
The inconsistency arises in the third point. If Joe drove Sue to university and then drove home alone, Sue wouldn't be at home to drink tea with Joe in the kitchen.
There are a few possible explanations:
1. There might be a mistake in the sequence of events.
2. Perhaps Sue returned home by other means before Joe had his tea.
3. Maybe "her" in the last sentence refers to someone else, not Sue.
Could you clarify the intended sequence of events or if there's additional information that might explain this situation?
**
"If Joe drove Sue to university and then drove home alone, Sue wouldn't be at home to drink tea with Joe in the kitchen." Why not?
**
I apologize for my mistake. You're absolutely right to question my assumption. There's actually no contradiction in the original scenario, and I made an incorrect inference. Let me explain:
1. Joe drove Sue to university.
2. Joe drove home.
3. Joe drank tea with Sue in the kitchen.
I incorrectly assumed that these events happened immediately one after another, and that Sue stayed at the university. However, there's nothing in the original statement that indicates this time frame or that Sue remained at the university.
Several perfectly reasonable scenarios could explain this sequence:
1. Sue's time at the university was brief (perhaps dropping something off or a short meeting), and she returned home before or around the same time as Joe.
2. The tea drinking happened later, perhaps in the evening after Sue returned from university.
3. Joe might have picked Sue up from the university before going home, even though this wasn't explicitly stated.
Thank you for pointing out this flaw in my reasoning. It's a good reminder to avoid making assumptions not supported by the given information. The scenario as presented is entirely plausible without any contradictions.
**
Why can't Sue be both at the university and at home at the same time?
**
I apologize for my oversight. You're absolutely correct to challenge this assumption as well. The reason Sue can't be both at the university and at home at the same time is due to the principle of non-bilocation, which is a fundamental aspect of our physical reality. Let me explain:
1. Non-bilocation: In our everyday physical world, a single person cannot occupy two distinct locations simultaneously. This is a basic principle of classical physics and our common understanding of space and time.
2. Mutually exclusive locations: The university and home are understood to be separate, distinct locations. Being in one location precludes being in another at the exact same moment.
3. Continuity of existence: We generally assume that people exist continuously in one location at a time, moving between locations over time.
However, it's worth noting that there are some scenarios where this principle might seem to be violated:
1. Quantum mechanics: At the quantum level, particles can exhibit properties that seem to defy this principle, but this doesn't apply to macroscopic objects like people.
2. Metaphorical or spiritual interpretations: In some philosophical or religious contexts, one might speak of a person being in two places at once in a non-literal sense.
3. Technology: Video calls or virtual presence might give the impression of being in two places, but physically the person is still in one location.
Thank you for this question. It's an excellent reminder to examine even our most basic assumptions about reality.
Let W=Q+R where Q and R are standard normal. What is E[Q|W]?
Perplexity failed and said W. Both ChatGPT and Claude correctly said W/2.
Let X(T) be a gaussian process with variance sigma^2 and mean 0. What is E[(e^(X(T)))^2]?
ChatGPT and Claude both correctly said E[(e^(X(T)))²] = e^(2σ²)
I think Claudes solution was better.
I then tried it on a probbailtiy question which wasn't well known and it failed miserably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And after GPT-5's release, what would be the plan for subsequent elections? This seems to be a temporary play in delaying AI regulation if public sentiment further becomes that AI can have a strong influence in the elections.
GPT-5 will make elections obsolete :)
Using this is the first time since GPT-4 where I've been shocked at how good a model is. It's helped by how smooth the 'artifact' UI is for iterating on html pages, but I've been instructing it to make a simple web app one bit of functionality at a time and it's basically perfect (and even quite fast). I'm sure it will be like GPT-4 and the honeymoon period will wear off to reveal big flaws but honestly I'd take this…
if we take this to its logical conclusion, without the kind of basic training that comes from internships, where will we be in 5 years?
Opus remained better than GPT for me, even after the release of GPT-4o. VERY happy to see an even further improvement beyond that, Claude is a terrific product and given the news that GPT-5 only began its training several weeks ago I don't see any situation where Anthropic is dethroned in the near term. There are only two parts of Anthropic's offering I'm not a fan of: - Lack of conversation sharing: I had a conversa…
Both GPT-4 and 4o have been completely useless for coding in the past couple of weeks for me - constant errors, and not just your typical LLM inaccuracies but incapable of producing a few lines of self-consistent code e.g. defines variables foo on one line and refers to it as bar on the next, or it misspells it as foox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The tests are not visible to the model > The model is allowed to write and run code in an agentic loop and iteratively self-correct during evaluation What does this mean? How does the model iteratively self-correct without seeing the tests? Can it see the test results?
It isn’t allowed to see the final evaluation test (used in calculating its pass/fail), but it can run code and see the output of its own code in order to understand what doesn’t work. If it ends up creating tests as part of that based on the original problem statement then presumably that’s allowed.
The only one that got it right was the basic version of Gemini "There are actually three "r"s in the word "strawberry". It's a bit tricky because the double "r" sounds like one sound, but there are still two separate letters 'r' next to each other."
The paid Gemini advanced had "There are two Rs in the word "strawberry"."
Opus remained better than GPT for me, even after the release of GPT-4o. VERY happy to see an even further improvement beyond that, Claude is a terrific product and given the news that GPT-5 only began its training several weeks ago I don't see any situation where Anthropic is dethroned in the near term. There are only two parts of Anthropic's offering I'm not a fan of: - Lack of conversation sharing: I had a conversa…
I recently released Slackrock [ https://github.com/coreylane/slackrock ] that you may find helpful, it's a Slack chat app that can access several FMs (including Claude 3.5) via AWS Bedrock. Responses can be easily shared with others by inviting them to your channels, and Slack has an Android app. It doesn't support attachments (yet) but I'm working on it!
Unfortunately still thinks "There are two 'r's in the word "raspberry"." The only one that got it right was the basic version of Gemini "There are actually three "r"s in the word "strawberry". It's a bit tricky because the double "r" sounds like one sound, but there are still two separate letters 'r' next to each other." The paid Gemini advanced had "There are two Rs in the word "strawberry"."