4 ms·

Asked ChatGPT to explain like I’m 5. This is what it produced. “ Okay! Imagine that you have a big robot in your head that knows a lot about lots of different

Asked ChatGPT to explain like I’m 5. This is what it produced. “ Okay! Imagine that you have a big robot in your head that knows a lot about lots of different things. Sometimes, the robot might make mistakes or say things that aren't true. The proposed method is like a way to ask the robot questions and figure out what it knows, even if it says something that isn't true. We do this by looking inside the robot's head and finding patterns that make sense, like if we ask the robot if something is true and then ask if the opposite of that thing is true, the robot should say "yes" and then "no." Using this method, we can find out what the robot knows, even if it sometimes makes mistakes.”

M4v3R 4y ago
This was a great explanation, now can any expert in the field tell us if it’s actually correct? :)
kmonsen 4y ago
That just show that the robot is consistent, not that it actually makes sense. So this explanation is bullshit even though it sounds convincing at first. That also the issue with most of ChatGPT, it is hard to know when it sounds convincing and is false.
- TheEzEzz 4y ago
  If you read the abstract it appears that ChatGPTs explanation is on point. You're right that the paper is relying on consistency, which doesn't guarantee accuracy, but it is what the paper is proposing (and they claim it does lead to increased accuracy).
  - kmonsen 4y ago
    An accurate answer has to be consistent so it's not all bullshit. I'm guessing you can at least filter out inaccuracies by finding inconsistencies. Or in more plain English if you find somewhere it gives inconsistent answers you know those are wrong. I'm not sure if that's a good path forward. You really want to find when it's good, not filtering out bad cases.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  Its literally bullshit in the highly technical sense. http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_... The essence of bullshit is that it is different from a lie, for a liar respects the fact that their is a truth and knows what the truth is well enough to purposefully misrepresent it, whereas a bullshitter neither knows nor cares if what they are saying corresponds to anything in reality just so long as it makes the right impression. >The point that troubles Wittgenstein is manifestly not that Pascal has made a mistake in her description of how she feels. Nor is it even that she has made a careless mistake. Her laxity, or her lack of care, is not a matter of having permitted an error to slip into her speech on account of some inadvertent or momentarily negligent lapse in the attention she was devoting to getting things right. The point is rather that, so far as Wittgenstein can see, Pascal offers a description of a certain state of affairs without genuinely submitting to the constraints which the endeavor to provide an accurate representation of reality imposes. Her fault is not that she fails to get things right, but that she is not even trying.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Your comment had less value than the parent. Humanity is doomed. If you call bullshit, you have to say what was wrong or even what you think is wrong. Otherwise you are just insulting our new robot overlords. Now, it seems you claim that consistency isn’t the same as making sense. But having more logically consistent robots seems like a big win! Otherwise I could criticize math papers for not making sense, even as I don’t doubt their consistency.
  - kmonsen 4y ago
    I did, I said this is just proving consistency and not anything more. I also in another comment said that I'm not sure filtering out bad or inconsistent answers is a good way to give us the truth or just filtering out the worst takes making it more convincing.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  As always (humans too) bollocks in bollocks out. ChatGPT works when you tell it what to convey and it just puts that into words.
- wolletd 4y ago
  Some days ago, it told me "well, Boost has a function for that". I was surprised that I haven't found that myself. I took me 10 minutes and opening the Git Log of Boost ("maybe they removed it?") until I realized "well, it just made that up". The whole answer was consistent and convicing enough, that I started searching, but it was just nonsense. It even provided a convincing amount of example code for it's made up function. That experience was... insightful. While we often say "If you need something in C++, Boost probably has it" and it's not untrue, ChatGPT seems to exercise that idea a little too much.
  - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
    ChatGPT just matches the most statistically-likely reply based on a huge corpus of internet discussions, it doesn't actually have any ideas.
    - jameshart 4y ago
      And a lot of highly linked forum questions and answers tend to be of the form “how do you do X in library Y?”, “Use the Z function!” - so naturally chatGPT loves to reproduce this popular pattern of communication.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > ChatGPT just matches the most statistically-likely reply based on a huge corpus of internet discussions, it doesn't actually have any ideas Presumably you think humans have ideas, but you don't really have any evidence that humans aren't also producing the most statistically likely replies. Maybe we're just better at this game.
      - IIAOPSW 4y ago
        Applesauce. Checkmate.
        naasking 4y ago
        A smart ass reply was statistically very likely on HN actually. Checkmate me.
- gpvos 4y ago
  It looks to me like ChatGPT explained accurately what the abstract says. And indeed, the abstract sounds like this research is largely bullshit. But it's not ChatGPT that is at fault here.
  - kmonsen 4y ago
    If it was really useful it could say that and point out weaknesses and benefits. Like both you and me could do in 10 seconds.
    - optimalsolver 4y ago
      They didn't ask ChatGPT to find flaws in the proposal. Not saying it could, just pointing out that it wasn't asked to do so.
    - gpvos 4y ago
      If it did that on its own, we would be past the Singularity.
- naasking 4y ago
  > That just show that the robot is consistent, not that it actually makes sense. A consistent argument is an argument that makes sense to the robot, not necessarily one that makes sense to you.
- djexjms 4y ago
  But that is actually a fairly accurate description of the paper you asked it to summarize for you. It's not the models fault that you don't like the argument of the paper.

M4v3R 4y ago

This was a great explanation, now can any expert in the field tell us if it’s actually correct? :)

kmonsen 4y ago

That just show that the robot is consistent, not that it actually makes sense. So this explanation is bullshit even though it sounds convincing at first. That also the issue with most of ChatGPT, it is hard to know when it sounds convincing and is false.

TheEzEzz 4y ago
If you read the abstract it appears that ChatGPTs explanation is on point. You're right that the paper is relying on consistency, which doesn't guarantee accuracy, but it is what the paper is proposing (and they claim it does lead to increased accuracy).
- kmonsen 4y ago
  An accurate answer has to be consistent so it's not all bullshit. I'm guessing you can at least filter out inaccuracies by finding inconsistencies. Or in more plain English if you find somewhere it gives inconsistent answers you know those are wrong. I'm not sure if that's a good path forward. You really want to find when it's good, not filtering out bad cases.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Its literally bullshit in the highly technical sense. http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_... The essence of bullshit is that it is different from a lie, for a liar respects the fact that their is a truth and knows what the truth is well enough to purposefully misrepresent it, whereas a bullshitter neither knows nor cares if what they are saying corresponds to anything in reality just so long as it makes the right impression. >The point that troubles Wittgenstein is manifestly not that Pascal has made a mistake in her description of how she feels. Nor is it even that she has made a careless mistake. Her laxity, or her lack of care, is not a matter of having permitted an error to slip into her speech on account of some inadvertent or momentarily negligent lapse in the attention she was devoting to getting things right. The point is rather that, so far as Wittgenstein can see, Pascal offers a description of a certain state of affairs without genuinely submitting to the constraints which the endeavor to provide an accurate representation of reality imposes. Her fault is not that she fails to get things right, but that she is not even trying.
dr_dshiv 4y ago
Your comment had less value than the parent. Humanity is doomed. If you call bullshit, you have to say what was wrong or even what you think is wrong. Otherwise you are just insulting our new robot overlords. Now, it seems you claim that consistency isn’t the same as making sense. But having more logically consistent robots seems like a big win! Otherwise I could criticize math papers for not making sense, even as I don’t doubt their consistency.
- kmonsen 4y ago
  I did, I said this is just proving consistency and not anything more. I also in another comment said that I'm not sure filtering out bad or inconsistent answers is a good way to give us the truth or just filtering out the worst takes making it more convincing.
psychphysic 4y ago
As always (humans too) bollocks in bollocks out. ChatGPT works when you tell it what to convey and it just puts that into words.
wolletd 4y ago
Some days ago, it told me "well, Boost has a function for that". I was surprised that I haven't found that myself. I took me 10 minutes and opening the Git Log of Boost ("maybe they removed it?") until I realized "well, it just made that up". The whole answer was consistent and convicing enough, that I started searching, but it was just nonsense. It even provided a convincing amount of example code for it's made up function. That experience was... insightful. While we often say "If you need something in C++, Boost probably has it" and it's not untrue, ChatGPT seems to exercise that idea a little too much.
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  ChatGPT just matches the most statistically-likely reply based on a huge corpus of internet discussions, it doesn't actually have any ideas.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    And a lot of highly linked forum questions and answers tend to be of the form “how do you do X in library Y?”, “Use the Z function!” - so naturally chatGPT loves to reproduce this popular pattern of communication.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > ChatGPT just matches the most statistically-likely reply based on a huge corpus of internet discussions, it doesn't actually have any ideas Presumably you think humans have ideas, but you don't really have any evidence that humans aren't also producing the most statistically likely replies. Maybe we're just better at this game.
    - IIAOPSW 4y ago
      Applesauce. Checkmate.
      - naasking 4y ago
        A smart ass reply was statistically very likely on HN actually. Checkmate me.
gpvos 4y ago
It looks to me like ChatGPT explained accurately what the abstract says. And indeed, the abstract sounds like this research is largely bullshit. But it's not ChatGPT that is at fault here.
- kmonsen 4y ago
  If it was really useful it could say that and point out weaknesses and benefits. Like both you and me could do in 10 seconds.
  - optimalsolver 4y ago
    They didn't ask ChatGPT to find flaws in the proposal. Not saying it could, just pointing out that it wasn't asked to do so.
  - gpvos 4y ago
    If it did that on its own, we would be past the Singularity.
naasking 4y ago
> That just show that the robot is consistent, not that it actually makes sense. A consistent argument is an argument that makes sense to the robot, not necessarily one that makes sense to you.
djexjms 4y ago
But that is actually a fairly accurate description of the paper you asked it to summarize for you. It's not the models fault that you don't like the argument of the paper.