8 ms·

We have a product that uses ChatGPT via the API, using the 3.5 turbo version. Our query involves some dates. Instead of giving back text like it usually does,

• littlestymaar 3y ago
  Wired: LLM are practically AGI Tired: ChatGPT thinks February 29th isn't a valid date.
  • AlienRobot 3y ago
    That's because it's trained on 2021 data. No February 29 back then!
  • pants2 3y ago
    For the record, both ChatGPT-4 and Gemini Ultra affirmed that it's a valid date. Gemini reasoned through it and GPT-4 ran python code to make sure 2024 was divisible by 4.
    • daseiner1 3y ago
      Did it also check if 2024 is divisible by 100 but not 400?
    • roland35 3y ago
      Interesting... But that isn't exactly true! Centuries that are not divisible by 4 don't count!
      • swores 3y ago
        I've yet to come across a form of 100 that isn't divisible by 4... since 25 usually still exists! But I do remember there being some weird niche rules about which years are or aren't leap years, so I'm guessing your comment is basically right just wrongly worded?
        • latexr 3y ago
          The rule is that leap years are the ones divisible by 4. Unless it’s also divisible by 100. Unless unless it’s divisible by 400. So 2000 was leap, but 2100, 2200, and 2300 won’t be, but 2400 will be.
          • swores 3y ago
            Ahh, so it's centuries that aren't divisible by 400 rather than that aren't divisible by 4, that makes more sense! Thanks for answering
            • thaumasiotes 3y ago
              It's centuries that aren't divisible by 4. It isn't years that aren't divisible by 4.
        • inglor_cz 3y ago
          The GP formulated it in a somewhat unclear way. "Centuries" divisible by 4 probably meant "years" divisible by 400. So, 19th century (1900 is the last year) isn't divisible by 4 (19/4 is not integer), which is the same as saying that 1900 isn't divisible by 400. This is the main reform of the Gregorian calendar - leap days aren't introduced on xy00 years which aren't divisible by 400. This corrects the length of a year to 365.2425 days, which is fairly close to the real value of 364.2422 days. The original Julian calendar had year of 365.25 days, which aggregated an error of more than ten days over the centuries.
  • peteradio 3y ago
    But akshually neither does my uncle Ned
  • pquki4 3y ago
    My favorite prompt: asking "How many e's are there in the word egregious". Always says three (ChatGPT 3.5, 4, 4 turbo). When you ask it which three, it realizes its mistake and apologizes (or sometimes tells you where they are that is completely wrong). Looks like it just outputs gibberish for these things.
    • devjab 3y ago
      It’s always gibberish, it’s just really good at guessing. I forgot what exactly it was I was doing. We were trying to get it to generate word lists of words ending with x or maybe it was starting with. For a marketing PoC and it made up oceans of words that not only didn’t start/end with x but mostly didn’t include x at all. Isn’t this also why it can pass CS exams and job interviews better than like 95% of us, but then can’t help you solve the most simple business process in the world. Because nobody has asked that question two billion times on its training data.
      • mewpmewp2 3y ago
        But also it doesn't see characters. It sees tokens. The only way it would be reliably able to solve it is if it had a lookup table of token to characters. Which it likely doesn't. You couldn't do it either unless you learned the exact matchings of all tokens to all characters in that token and their positions if you were given tokens as an input. You would have learned the meaning of the token, but not what the exact characters it represents.
        • yousif_123123 3y ago
          Even if it sees tokens, I don't think it's an impossible task. Certainly an advanced enough LLM should be able to decipher token meanings, to know that a word is made up of the individual character tokens regardless of how the full word is tokenized. Maybe something gpt5 can do (or there's some real technical limitation which I don't understand)
          • Izkata 3y ago
• baron816 3y ago
  ChatGPT thinks today is March 1. Go ahead and ask it what today’s date is.
  • vdfs 3y ago
    It is March 1 in many places
  • huytersd 3y ago
    > No, 2024 is not a leap year. Leap years are years divisible by 4, except for years that are divisible by 100 unless they are also divisible by 400. Therefore, the next leap year will be 2024.
    • rodface 3y ago
      As the proud new owner of a leap day baby, I find this to be extra hilarious
      • heywoods 3y ago
        Congratulations!
      • pizzafeelsright 3y ago
        I was at the hospital and heard two babies being born. I love that music.
      • hilux 3y ago
        Congratulations! Big savings on parties and cake!
    • muzani 3y ago
      Apparently it reads 2024 as two different numbers: 202 and 4
  • s9df898r32h 3y ago
    thats better then Mistral... it "thinks" it is March 15th 2023 "The current date is March 15, 2023. However, please note that as a large language model, my knowledge is based on the data I was trained on, which is up to 2021. Therefore, I cannot provide real-time information or updates on current events or dates. I recommend checking a reliable source such as a calendar or a trusted news website for the most accurate and up-to-date information."
• esalman 3y ago
  Blows my mind that people consider using ChatGPT for serious applications. I mean it's fine as a code autocorrect/autocomplete tool as in GitHub copilot. But it should not replace the code itself. You encounter a bug in the code, you fix it, you never encounter it again. But ChatGPT will repeat the same mistake sooner or later. That's not how we should engineer solution for critical problems.
  • ativzzz 3y ago
    It's great for prototyping and creating outlines/rough drafts or for creating rough summaries - you can build this into some features to help your customers speed up writing lots of text
  • lucumo 3y ago
    If the cost-savings is worth it compared to the problems... I mean, that's how we do it with humans. It's quite a common occurrence to keep a part of a business process human because automating it would we too expense due to edge cases. Humans make mistakes and are expensive, but are also flexible and usually smartish. ChatGPT makes mistakes and is usually dumbish, but is also flexible and cheap. Engineering is about picking the right trade-offs in your solution.
    • fractalb 3y ago
      > ChatGPT makes mistakes and is usually dumbish, but is also flexible and cheap. People wouldn't mind it if the keyword `dumbish` has been all along there.
    • fuzztester 3y ago
      >I mean, that's how we do it with humans. It's quite a common occurrence to keep a part of a business process human because automating it would we too expense due to edge cases. Which part of the human do people keep? The head? Arms? ;) #ParsingAmbiguityError
  • makoto12 3y ago
    If you sandbox your connection to openAI correctly, then you can get the benefit of a llm without making your application look silly at the same time. Identifying the correct places in your business to use it is tricky, but imo it certainly makes sense in a lot of specific areas. Just not a catch all that can run your business for you
• lynx23 3y ago
  Saw the same via the API with gpt-4-0125-preview. IOW, even gpt-4 thinks 2024 is not a leap year.
  • fragmede 3y ago
    That's weird, I don't get that with gpt-4 https://chat.openai.com/share/336b1c4b-53b7-4d56-ac68-e3c86890760a https://chat.openai.com/share/336b1c4b-53b7-4d56-ac68-e3c868...
    • lynx23 3y ago
      Given the probabilistic nature of LLMs, you likely need to run an experiment several times to see the various different results it can produce.