Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

jameswillia.ms

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 213 posts

Re: ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

#181

Post by fock »

tkgally wrote: post #72

I find it amusing that, at present, ChatGPT seems to be lousy at mathematical-type reasoning while being very good at natural language use. That is the opposite of what many people, including me, have come to expect of computers. I have worked for many years in translation, lexicography, and language education, and I am flabbergasted at how well ChatGPT handles natural language. It can produce example sentences of po…

It's very good at talking something. But the something is ... well: how many people here think that carpooling with friends to go to a nature preserver is a good idea for a first date?

Re: ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

#182

Post by astrobe_ »

rexreed wrote: post #175

What exactly are people expecting? All transformer models, of which ChatGPT is just one big fancy example, are just pattern matchers based on a large corpus of text trying to find the next string that completes the pattern. There's no reasoning, no understanding. It's just a big fancy parrot. Now ask your parrot to do some math. Polly want an AI cracker? We clearly haven't cracked the code on AGI yet, and transformer…

> Now ask your parrot to do some math

No problem, just use the right parrot for the right job [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_parrot#Intelligence_and_c...

Re: ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

#183

Post by mherrmann »

While the system 1/2 analogy and points by other commenters about tokenization are relevant, I'd like to highlight another observation: It's possible to teach ChatGPT to multiply correctly, by asking it to go through the computation step by step. Note what this does: It turns an O(n) response into one that is O(n^2) for the standard algorithm. This makes sense. Otherwise, ChatGPT would be able to solve problems more quickly than the fastest existing algorithm.

I'd also like to criticize a point in the article: OP implies that rot13 is naturally a system 2 problem. But I bet that a human with enough training can do it via system 1. Cue Neo watching the Matrix.

Re: ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

#184

Post by tialaramex »

depr wrote: post #151
MatthiasPortzel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kahneman's book is based on a myriad of sources and covers enormous ground. He enumerates dozens of patterns of human thought, all supported by studies. Furthermore, the book is clear that System 1/System 2 distinction is an imperfect model. I'm sure the field of psychology has made progress since Think Fast and Slow was published, but it feels weird to use the word "debunk" to refer to a book that was scientifically…

Was the theory of phrenology scientifically accurate at some point in time?

Isn't the problem with phrenology not just that it's wrong but that it has no predictive value at all? So it's no more scientifically accurate than just picking at random.

Whereas say Phlogiston isn't real, but if your world model has Phlogiston to explain combustion, you can predict some things more effectively than random. A Phlogiston model is clearly better than no model -- it's just that if you take all the Phlogiston out and put Oxygen elsewhere (most obviously, in air) your model works better and a bunch of previously astonishing things now make sense because Oxygen is real and Phlogiston isn't.

Re: ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

#185

Post by rexreed »

astrobe_ wrote: post #182
rexreed wrote: post #175

What exactly are people expecting? All transformer models, of which ChatGPT is just one big fancy example, are just pattern matchers based on a large corpus of text trying to find the next string that completes the pattern. There's no reasoning, no understanding. It's just a big fancy parrot. Now ask your parrot to do some math. Polly want an AI cracker? We clearly haven't cracked the code on AGI yet, and transformer…

> Now ask your parrot to do some math No problem, just use the right parrot for the right job [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_parrot#Intelligence_and_c...

Give ParROT13 a try

Re: ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

#186

Post by Dylan16807 »

ivanche wrote: post #161
Dylan16807 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a guy talking. > Plus from the video: "do you have a thorough idea what OpenAI is doing, neither do I" - cut to strobe light and rock music. Jeesh, can't see that as support. The hell are you talking about? There's no strobe there, he just goes to a slide with a white background, and the music is very quiet compared to his voice and not at all something I would call "rock".

> It's just a guy talking. Maybe joe_the_user went overboard with calling it strobe light, but this is definitely not "just a guy talking". I don't know how people call this style of videos but it's very tiresome - constantly zooming in and out, full of sound effects (glass breaking, snaring, what not), changing backgrounds, changing lights, everything is just uncontrollably moving and shaking every 5-10 seconds or s…

The sound effects are not loud though, and you don't have to look at the video to get the information. Some zooms aren't the kind of visual where "eyes bleeding" is a hyperbole of the actual problem, either.

There are valid criticisms that can be made, but they are different from the criticisms joe_the_user actually made.

Re: ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

#187

Post by maze-le »

I have just asked it the following: Suppose we have the set of all n x n Matrices denoted as M(n,n). Further we define the operation ・ as Matrix multiplication. Is G=(M(n,n),・) a group?

It incorrectly stated that G is a group and has given me the list of group axioms that must be satisfied. Since not all n x n Matrices do necessarily have an inverse G is not a group. So this answer was wrong and I've "explained" why.

2 hours later I've asked the very same question again (with a slightly different wording) in a completely new session. It not only has given me the correct answer it also deduced why G is not a group and how the set M(n,n) can be restricted to only include Matrices with non zero determinant, so that G becomes a group.

That pretty impressive!

Re: ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

#189

Post by usgroup »

PostOnce wrote: post #16

It is as though its mathematical abilities are incomplete in their training, and wildly, incomprehensibly convoluted: I tried many base64 strings and they all decoded correctly until: It "decoded" the base64 string for "which actress is the best?" except that it replaced "actress" with "address"... there is no off-by-one error that brings you to that. You may try 100 base64 strings and they all decode correctly... on…

Bare in mind that humans have a fundamental sense of meaning. You write and speak to express meaning : that’s syntax . Your valid sentences map onto valid meanings. You can speak nonsense but you can also tell it’s nonsense.

GPT sentences map into meaning only incidentally due to training — that is, it has no sense of semantics.

One can systematically thus generate an infinity of defeating cases.

Re: ChatGPT, Rot13, and Daniel Kahneman

#190

Post by hackinthebochs »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #100
dougmwne wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I have long suspected that GTP solves the human subconscious, but has not solved the human conscious.

The way how talking with it feels trippy (particularly if you get a good run on e.g. co-writing a story), you may be on to something.

How people often speak of seeing words in dreams but being unable to make out their meaning reinforces this idea. I experienced this last night. I could see shapes of words but when I looked closely the shapes had no meaning, they looked like how Dall-E and other images generators hallucinate word shapes.
Post reply on HN