so it confidently spews a bunch of incorrect shit, acts humble and apologetic while correcting none of its behavior, and constantly offers unsolicited advice.
I think it trained on Reddit data
james1@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s a machine learning chat bot, not a calculator, and especially not “AI.”
It’s primary focus is trying to look like something a human might say. It isn’t trying to actually learn maths at all. This is like complaining that your satnav has no grasp of the cinematic impact of Alfred Hitchcock.
It doesn’t need to understand the question, or give an accurate answer, it just needs to say a sentence that sounds like a human might say it.
TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 11 months ago
cxx@lemmy.world 11 months ago
acts humble and apologetic
We must be using different Reddits, my friend
bric@lemm.ee 11 months ago
This. It is able to tap in to plugins and call functions though, which is what it really should be doing. For math, the Wolfram alpha plugin will always be more capable than chatGPT alone, so we should be benchmarking how often it can correctly reformat your query, call Wolfram alpha, and correctly format the result, not whether the statistical model behind chatGPT happens to use predict the right token
Gork@lemm.ee 11 months ago
It sounds like it’s time to merge Wolfram Alpha’s and ChatGPT’s capabilities together to create the ultimate calculator.
Gazumbo@lemmy.world 11 months ago
If it’s trying emulate a human then it’s spot on. I suck at maths.
dbilitated@aussie.zone 11 months ago
to be fair, fucking up maths problems is very human-like.
I wonder if it could also be trained on a great deal of mathematical axioms that are computer generated?
Cabrio@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It doesn’t calculate anything though. You ask chatgpt what is 5+5, and it tells you the most statistically likely response based on training data. Now we know there’s a lot of both moronic and intentionally belligerent answers on the Internet, so the statistical probability of it getting any mathematical equation correct goes down exponemtially with complexity and never even approaches 100% certainty even with the simplest equations because 1+1= window.
dbilitated@aussie.zone 11 months ago
i know it doesn’t calculate, that’s why I suggested having known correct calculations in the training data to offset noise in the signal?
R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
You’re right, but at least the satnav won’t gaslight you into thinking it does understand Alfred Hitchcock.