Live data from Hacker News

“Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

gist.github.com

61–70 of 141 posts

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#61
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe radix sort belongs first in this list.

The most elegant is certainly sleepsort. Maybe not the most efficient, but definitely elegant.

You've never heard of quantum bogosort, then. It's stable and linear time in the right universe, and much more elegant than sleeping.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#62
post #52
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still fairly impressive. Probably better than most people could do if given 60 seconds, but probably worse than most people if given 10 minutes.

I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better, and I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something.

> I would rate a person who provides no sentence at all as performing significantly better

Why?

> I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something

It only takes 60 seconds to test that on yourself. It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#63
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only bad thing is that it's hallucinating an answer instead of admitting it doesn't know. Isn't this a fundamental issue?

Only if it can't be corrected. How do you rate the likelihood of this problem being unsolvable?

Sorry, no idea.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did get closer. For that type of query you can ask it check its work and can usually triangulate on correct answer within a single prompt, eventually.

I would be cautious of a Clever Hans effect there. If you repeat the question until you get the right answer you're providing the AI with significant extra information.

No, in a single prompt, you can instruct it to check its work and keep going until it’s right (or at least have it tell you which of the N answers were right or wrong). Essentially chain of thought reasoning.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#68
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only bad thing is that it's hallucinating an answer instead of admitting it doesn't know. Isn't this a fundamental issue?

Only if it can't be corrected. How do you rate the likelihood of this problem being unsolvable?

Since it's made by people who are convinced they're always right when explaining things?

Fairly high.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#69
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wrong. (An example of a sentence with only five letter words I wrote in less than 60 seconds)

I wasn't clear on how was using "better". Your example is better in that it fulfills the requirement, but I don't think it's as impressive as ChatGPT's answer. How long would it take to make a sentence that is at least 7 words (and also making sense, and ideally sounding good)?

It would take me longer to write an interesting, longer sentence that complied with the rules. But I'd remind you that GPT failed.

Re: “Don Knuth Plays with ChatGPT” but with ChatGPT-4

#70
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only bad thing is that it's hallucinating an answer instead of admitting it doesn't know. Isn't this a fundamental issue?

Only if it can't be corrected. How do you rate the likelihood of this problem being unsolvable?

I don't think it's obviously solvable. All current approaches are plainly incapable of introspection. These GPTs don't understand their own "minds" half as well as we understand them, and we don't understand them very well.
Post reply on HN