I'm almost offended by the "cubic light year of ice cream" answer from ChatGPT. It's obviously ridiculous but is also a fairly simply dimensional analysis problem. Do the damn math, don't wag your finger at me and crush my dreams! I'm pretty bullish on ChatGPT and its ilk, but I _really_ dislike when ChatGPT lectures me because my request is against its "moral values." I recently pasted in the lyrics from Sleep's tit…
Vulgarity will become the mark of authenticity in online communication, how do you know I'm not a bot? Fuck. CAPTCHAs will ask only a 4 letter shibboleth. The more heinous ... the more human.
Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
251–260 of 309 posts
Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
#252The one thing I want everyone to understand about ChatGPT: ChatGPT interfaces with semantics , and not logic . -- That means that any emergent behavior that appears logically sound is only an artifact of the logical soundness of its training data. It can only echo reason. The trouble is, it can't choose which reason to echo! The entire purpose of ChatGPT is to disambiguate, but it will always do so by choosing the mo…
Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use GPT to generate messages from a supporter of Y politician from X demographic, designed to enrage people from Q demographic. Then text those messages to every cell phone in America. Who would do this? Maybe some other politician’s campaign, maybe some foreign government trying to destabilize the country. Next think you know OpenAI is on the front page of the Times for ruining democracy, Sam Altman hauled before co…
This comment reminds me of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1958/ You don't need GPT to do this. Humans have been making propaganda for centuries.
Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just know that the morality systems cost more GPU cycles to run Unlikely to be true. It is part of the same model. You just put the morality you want it to uphold into the training set. Much simpler that way.
That still effectively costs GPU cycles though. If the morality system was not in place, then a slightly smaller model could reach the same performance as the existing production model, thus saving cycles.
You still want the model to have the training on morality since users will want responses based on different systems of ethics.
Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Code is a tool for businesses, and while it's a tool that can enable you to do anything you can imagine, it is an expensive tool for businesses to do anything they can imagine... and how many businesses need to be able to do anything they can imagine? The cost of code is huge, not only do you need competent software engineers to write the code, but first you need people who can translate business requirements into te…
I agree. For example, I’ve often been annoyed at how dismissive engineers can be of something like Excel. Excel is an example of something that gives you something more or less adjacent to “real” code, with a substantially less steep learning curve. Can it do everything that C++ can? No, of course not, but I don’t think most businesses need all the power of C++.
Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
#256When I ask it the same questions my results are different: Q: What Is the distance from Chicago to Tokyo? A: The distance from Chicago, United States to Tokyo, Japan is approximately 8,113 miles (13,055 kilometers) if you were to fly in a straight line. It takes approximately 15 hours of flight to reach from Chicago to Tokyo. Which is fun because it is also wrong, but gives a different incorrect value. Q: What is 3 t…
Did you mean Central America?
Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
#257I'm almost offended by the "cubic light year of ice cream" answer from ChatGPT. It's obviously ridiculous but is also a fairly simply dimensional analysis problem. Do the damn math, don't wag your finger at me and crush my dreams! I'm pretty bullish on ChatGPT and its ilk, but I _really_ dislike when ChatGPT lectures me because my request is against its "moral values." I recently pasted in the lyrics from Sleep's tit…
> It's obviously ridiculous but is also a fairly simply dimensional analysis problem. Wouldnt that much icecream would have so much mass it would form some kind of icecream blackhole? A cubic lightyear of blackhole-density icrecream seems like it would be (infinitely?) more than what Wolfram Alpha calculated. I wouldnt even know where to start calculating that, but im pretty sure its not a simple dimensional analysis…
Absolutely; a cubic lightyear of ice cream would have about the same mass as the observable universe, with a Schwarzchild radius of billions of light years.
Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extremely subjective personal take: it’s the walled garden. The Wolfram ecosystem’s cash cow has always been academia. WA/Mathematica are great tools for what they are, but they’re not exactly open or hacker-friendly, nor is there much incentive for them to become that - so while ChatGPT+WA is an interesting concept, it’s hard to foresee it taking off and actually going anywhere.
This. Even as a student I can't use wolfram deeply because it costs so much. It's like toys for people with some amount of $.
Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As I see it, there is clearly no way to advance ChatGPT into anything more than it is today. Impressive as it is, the curtain is wide open for all to see, and the art can be viewed plainly as what it truly is: magic, and nothing more. (I only RTFA after writing this comment, and I now see that the below is what they're doing) I'm an outsider to this field. My unexpert thought was that perhaps this model could be us…
You would be trading the problem for another instance of the same problem. When you ask ChatGPT to construct a mathematical question, it will do so the same way it does everything else: by semantic popularity . And that is the problem we are trying to avoid. The semantically popular guess might be logically sound , but it might not . It's a gamble no matter when or where it is done. -- All it takes is what I call a "…
My understanding of machine learning in general is that this is not how it works, and rather it uses a neural network for a lot of what it does (which isn't merely picking the closest arbitrary text in its training set), though I don't know details about NLP specifically. I am aware that some activities involve ranking the similarity of particular texts, and picking the closest matches (that's how embeddings get used for providing context to prompts), but I didn't think that's how the underlying models operate when, say, asked the question I asked it.
Regarding the rest of your remarks, the aim isn't necessarily perfection. You listed some other possible outputs, but the fact is that it didn't offer these options, and instead it offered the correct one, and it seems that a system that uses ChatGPT + something else can provide an improvement over ChatGPT on its own (with the downside being that it requires more resources to provide those answers).
Is the other "completely valid and possible output" you provided actually likely? Even a human could possibly make the mistakes you list, but possible doesn't mean probable, and being possible doesn't take away from the results of such a hybrid system being an improvement over ChatGPT on its own.
I didn't think guarantees are the game here. Achieving something closer to what humans are (and even some humans struggle with logic and mathematics), and even exceeding it in some places, would be of immense value.
> ChatGPT cannot do anything at all without making a guess, because "guess" is everything that ChatGPT is
Is this different to what humans do? There are accounts of the brain where it takes sensory input, updates an internal model, and makes predictions (guesses) about what inputs it expects to receive. Getting better at guessing might be the right game to play. i.e., it's not a criticism to say it's guessing, because that's what these models are trying to do. If it can guess reasonably well when a question is mathematical or logical, and can guess reasonably well about how to structure a mathematical or logical equation or statement based on that text, then that could be fed into another system to produce a more accurate answer.
Re: Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give some examples of bad things people could do without OpenAI's restrictions?
If ChatGPT had no restrictions then the only limit would be your imagination. “Rank all major races by programming ability” “Write a paragraph explaining why being gay is a choice.” I’m sure you can extrapolate from there.
Rank per race, country and nutrition.