291–300 of 469 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Back in the 1970's we'd pull a spark plug and screw in a hose to use the compression phase to inflate tyres. You'd inflate your tires with a gasoline and air mix?
I mean... you don't breathe insides of your tires
One might reasonably wonder if the material might degrade or the tyre explode while running hot.
Can confirm, that doesn't happen.
The interesting thing about the 71.5% human baseline is that it suggests the question is more ambiguous than the article claims. When someone asks 'should I walk or drive to the car wash,' a reasonable interpretation is 'should I bother driving such a short distance.' Nearly 30% of humans missing it undermines the framing as a pure reasoning failure - it is partly a pragmatics problem about how we interpret underspec…
It tracks with the approximate 70:30 split we inexplicably observe in other seemingly unrelated population-wide metrics, which I suppose makes sense if 30% of people simply lack the ability to reason. That seems more correct than me than "the question is framed poorly" - I've seen far more poorly framed ballot referendums.
I think it would be better to say that 30% of people either lack the ability to reason (inarguably true in a few cases, though I'd suggest, and hope, an order of magnitude or two less than 30%, as that would be a life-altering mental impairment) or just can't generally be bothered to, or just didn't (because they couldn't be bothered, or because they felt some social pressure to answer quickly rather than taking more than an instant time to think) at the time of being asked this particular question.
An automated system like an LLM to not have this problem. It has no path to turn off or bypass any function that it has, so if it could reason it would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Where is your car?" is not a clarifying question, any more than "Do you hold a valid driver license?" or "Are you a spotted leopard?" Implicit in the question "Should I walk or drive?" is that walking and driving are not strictly impossible choices.
If walking is an option, then your car is already at the car wash. If your car was not at the car wash, then this wouldn't be a question
The interesting thing about the 71.5% human baseline is that it suggests the question is more ambiguous than the article claims. When someone asks 'should I walk or drive to the car wash,' a reasonable interpretation is 'should I bother driving such a short distance.' Nearly 30% of humans missing it undermines the framing as a pure reasoning failure - it is partly a pragmatics problem about how we interpret underspec…
I don't think it's ambiguous, but I have been wondering how much LLMs model human behavior that we just don't recognize due to the subset of people on this site. I recently saw a comment online that "Mandarin isn't anyone's first language, people in China's first language is a dialect". It just struck me at that moment that people also hallucinate information confidently all the time.
And many will just repeat what was confidently said without question.
I know this it true, because my intelligent mate down the pub says so.
The interesting thing about the 71.5% human baseline is that it suggests the question is more ambiguous than the article claims. When someone asks 'should I walk or drive to the car wash,' a reasonable interpretation is 'should I bother driving such a short distance.' Nearly 30% of humans missing it undermines the framing as a pure reasoning failure - it is partly a pragmatics problem about how we interpret underspec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It tracks with the approximate 70:30 split we inexplicably observe in other seemingly unrelated population-wide metrics, which I suppose makes sense if 30% of people simply lack the ability to reason. That seems more correct than me than "the question is framed poorly" - I've seen far more poorly framed ballot referendums.
> which I suppose makes sense if 30% of people simply lack the ability to reason I think it would be better to say that 30% of people either lack the ability to reason (inarguably true in a few cases, though I'd suggest, and hope, an order of magnitude or two less than 30%, as that would be a life-altering mental impairment) or just can't generally be bothered to, or just didn't (because they couldn't be bothered, or…
If 30% of humans on the internet can't be bothered to make an effort to answer stupid questions correctly, then one would expect AIs to replicate this behaviour. And if humans on the internet sometimes provide sarcastic answers when presented with ridiculous questions, one would expect AIs to replicate this behavior as well.
So you really cannot say they have no incentive to do so. The incentive they have is that they get rewarded for replicating human behaviour.
I got a human baseline through Rapidata (10k people, same forced choice): 71.5% said drive. Most models perform below that. The correct answer to " I Want to Wash My Car. The Car Wash Is 50 Meters Away. Should I Walk or Drive? " is a clarifying question that asks "Where is your car?" Anything else is based on an assumption that could be wrong. FWIW though, asking ChatGPT "My car is 50m away from the carwash. I Want t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very awkward and formal. Anyone would call it lavage auto, lave-auto or simply lavage if the context is clear.
Maybe I'm too old or my family was weird. We called it "le carwash" with a beautifully French "carouache" pronunciation. But yeah, "lave-auto" sounds more familiar.