Another demonstration of chatGPT 4.0 capabilities

139 Replies, 6953 Views

(2023-05-29, 11:47 AM)Brian Wrote: I find it difficult to believe that using AI for information then fact checking the information is more efficient than direct research if the AI is producing the amount of junk the writer of that quote is implying.

Having tried it for myself, I now agree. I prompted it based on the actual example in the news article: "Please provide some appropriate quotes for an essay about indentured servitude in Fiji and India."

It returned ten numbered quotes, each literally enclosed in quote marks, but when I then prompted it to provide a reference for each quote, it basically responded with: yeah but nah, bro, I just made 'em up.

That seems to be true, because none of the first three was returned in a Google search.
(This post was last modified: 2023-05-29, 01:27 PM by Laird. Edited 1 time in total.)
[-] The following 3 users Like Laird's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel, Ninshub, Typoz
(2023-05-29, 01:26 PM)Laird Wrote: Having tried it for myself, I now agree. I prompted it based on the actual example in the news article: "Please provide some appropriate quotes for an essay about indentured servitude in Fiji and India."

It returned ten numbered quotes, each literally enclosed in quote marks, but when I then prompted it to provide a reference for each quote, it basically responded with: yeah but nah, bro, I just made 'em up.

That seems to be true, because none of the first three was returned in a Google search.

I've not tried this for myself so I don't know.

Is it possible to request each quote be accompanied by a reference to its original source, much as someone writing a research paper has to provide references?

That is, I understand this is what you already did, just wondered if it could be made part of the question from the outset, rather than a later addition.
(2023-03-30, 11:22 AM)sbu Wrote: Yesterday I had the following conversation with chatGPT 4.0

How does one get access to ChatGPT 4.0? I've just similarly tested the version of ChatGPT at chat.openai.com, which it self-identifies as being based on the GPT-3.5 architecture. I tested it on a deceptively simple problem, like you did in the OP for version 4.0, and it didn't get it right after several attempts, although it wasn't totally out of the ballpark. I'd be interested in trying on version 4.0. Maybe you can feed the problem description in and see how you go? Here's the relevant part of the transcript:


Me: I want to try another somewhat related problem with you. The problem description is as follows: We start with four basic elements: A, B, C, and D. Next, we define "a set of basic elements" as a set containing one or more of the basic elements, in which each basic element occurs at most once. Then, we define "a set of sets" as a set containing one or more sets of basic elements, in which, across all sets, each basic element again occurs at most once. The problem question then is: how many total possible sets of sets are there?

ChatGPT: To calculate the total number of possible sets of sets, we can analyze the problem step by step.

Step 1: Determine the number of possible individual basic element sets. For each basic element (A, B, C, D), there are two possibilities: either the element is present in a set or it is not. Since each basic element can occur at most once in a set, there are 2 options for each element.

Number of possible individual basic element sets = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 2^4 = 16

Step 2: Determine the number of possible combinations of sets of basic elements. Since a set of sets can contain one or more sets of basic elements, we need to consider different combinations. For each individual basic element set, we have two choices: either include it in a set of sets or exclude it. So, for 16 possible individual basic element sets, we have 2 options for each, resulting in:

Number of possible combinations of sets of basic elements = 2^16 = 65,536

Therefore, there are a total of 65,536 possible sets of sets according to the described problem.

It's important to note that this calculation assumes that the order of the sets and the order of the elements within each set are not considered distinct. If the order is taken into account, the number of possible sets of sets would be different.


Me: You seem to have made a mistake in step 2. The problem definition stipulated that across all sets of sets, each basic element occurs at most once, but in step two you allow for combinations of sets that each contain the same basic element. Can you please correct this error and provide an updated solution?

ChatGPT: Apologies for the mistake in the previous response. Let's correct the error and provide an updated solution.

Step 1: Determine the number of possible individual basic element sets. For each basic element (A, B, C, D), there are two possibilities: either the element is present in a set or it is not. Since each basic element can occur at most once in a set, there are 2 options for each element.

Number of possible individual basic element sets = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 2^4 = 16

Step 2: Determine the number of possible combinations of sets of basic elements without repetition. To ensure that across all sets of sets, each basic element occurs at most once, we need to exclude combinations that contain the same basic element more than once. In this case, we can use combinations without repetition.

Using combinations without repetition, the number of possible combinations can be calculated using the formula:

Number of combinations = 2^n - 1

where n is the number of elements or choices.

Number of possible combinations of sets of basic elements = 2^4 - 1 = 16 - 1 = 15

Therefore, there are a total of 15 possible sets of sets according to the given problem definition.

Thank you for pointing out the error, and I apologize for any confusion caused.


Me: This still seems to be mistaken, where in step two you calculate the number of combinations as 2^n -1. How do you justify this calculation?

ChatGPT: Apologies once again for the confusion caused. You are correct that the calculation provided in step two of the previous response was incorrect. I apologize for the mistake.

To rectify the error and provide an accurate calculation, let's re-evaluate step two.

Step 2: Determine the number of possible combinations of sets of basic elements without repetition.

To ensure that across all sets of sets, each basic element occurs at most once, we need to consider combinations of sets that avoid repeating basic elements.

Since each basic element can either be present or absent in a set, we have two options for each basic element. Considering the four basic elements (A, B, C, D), the total number of possible combinations of sets without repetition can be calculated as follows:

Number of possible combinations = 2^4 - 1 = 16 - 1 = 15

The subtraction of 1 is necessary to exclude the empty set, as it was not included in the problem definition.

Therefore, the correct number of possible sets of sets, while ensuring that each basic element occurs at most once across all sets, is 15.

I apologize for the previous errors and any confusion they may have caused. Thank you for bringing them to my attention.


Me: It seems that your answer calculates the total number of possible sets of sets that each contain only one set of basic elements. Can you please update it to include sets of sets that contain one or more sets of basic elements?

ChatGPT: Apologies for the confusion caused by my previous responses. Let's correct the calculation to include sets of sets that can contain one or more sets of basic elements, while still ensuring that each basic element occurs at most once across all sets.

To calculate the number of possible sets of sets, we can consider the power set of the individual basic element sets. The power set is the set of all possible subsets of a given set.

Given four basic elements (A, B, C, D), the number of possible individual basic element sets is 2^4 = 16, as discussed before.

To determine the number of possible sets of sets, we need to calculate the power set of the individual basic element sets, excluding the empty set. The empty set is excluded because the problem definition specifies that each set contains one or more basic elements.

The power set of a set with n elements contains 2^n subsets. Excluding the empty set, we have 2^n - 1 subsets.

Therefore, the updated calculation for the number of possible sets of sets is:

Number of possible sets of sets = 2^16 - 1 = 65,536 - 1 = 65,535

Hence, there are a total of 65,535 possible sets of sets that adhere to the conditions specified in the problem.
 

Me: You have made the same mistake in step 2 that you did in your initial answer: the problem definition stipulated that across all sets of sets, each basic element occurs at most once, but in step two your power set allows for combinations of sets that each contain the same basic element.

ChatGPT: Apologies for the repeated mistake in the previous response. You are correct in pointing out the error. I apologize for any confusion caused. Let's correct the calculation to consider the constraint that across all sets of sets, each basic element occurs at most once.

To determine the number of possible sets of sets while ensuring that each basic element occurs at most once across all sets, we need to exclude combinations that violate this constraint.

Given four basic elements (A, B, C, D), let's reconsider the calculation.

Step 1: Determine the number of possible individual basic element sets. As before, there are 2 possibilities for each basic element: present or absent.

Number of possible individual basic element sets = 2^4 = 16

Step 2: Determine the number of possible sets of sets without repetition of basic elements.

To ensure that each basic element occurs at most once across all sets, we need to exclude combinations that contain the same basic element more than once.

The correct approach is to use combinations without repetition.

Using combinations without repetition, the number of possible combinations can be calculated using the formula:

Number of combinations = 2^n - n

where n is the number of elements or choices.

Number of possible combinations of sets of basic elements without repetition = 2^4 - 4 = 16 - 4 = 12

Therefore, the correct number of possible sets of sets, considering the constraint that each basic element occurs at most once across all sets, is 12.

I apologize for the confusion caused by the previous incorrect responses and thank you for your patience.


Me: That is still not the correct answer, but I now better understand the limitations of your mathematical problem-solving abilities, so this exchange was helpful.

ChatGPT: I apologize for my repeated mistakes in providing the correct answer to the problem. I apologize for any frustration or confusion caused. It is true that there are limitations to my mathematical problem-solving abilities, and I appreciate your understanding.

If you have any other questions or need assistance with any other topic, please feel free to ask. I'm here to help to the best of my abilities.


[Note: the correct answer is 51, as I calculated here]
[-] The following 2 users Like Laird's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel, Typoz
(2023-05-29, 01:36 PM)Typoz Wrote: Is it possible to request each quote be accompanied by a reference to its original source, much as someone writing a research paper has to provide references?

Here's how that went:

Me: Please provide some appropriate quotes for an essay about indentured servitude in Fiji and India. The quotes should be from referenced sources.

ChatGPT: I apologize for any misunderstanding. However, as an AI language model, my responses are generated based on a mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available data. I have not been trained directly on specific publishers or have access to proprietary publishers. Therefore, I don't have the ability to provide explicit references or access to specific quotes from external sources.

If you're looking for quotes from referenced sources for your essay on indentured servitude in Fiji and India, I recommend conducting research using academic databases, books, or reputable online sources. These sources may contain quotes from historians, scholars, or primary documents that provide insights into the topic. By directly citing and referencing these sources in your essay, you can ensure the accuracy and reliability of the quotes used.

Remember to follow proper citation guidelines according to the formatting style (such as MLA, APA, or Chicago) specified by your educational institution or the requirements of your essay.
[-] The following 2 users Like Laird's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel, Typoz
(2023-05-29, 01:39 PM)Laird Wrote: Here's the relevant part of the transcript

Attached is the full transcript for those interested. It starts at the question re consciousness that I put to it as noted in the bottom of this post, and ends with the test based on the problem as per the transcript in the post I'm quoting.

In between, it answers questions about its capacity to understand and model reality, and provides examples of its mathematical problem-solving ability or in a couple of cases simply of its ability to recite the solutions to problems.


Attached Files
.pdf   conversation-with-chatgpt-exploring-its-self-assessment-and-mathematical-problem-solving-ability.pdf (Size: 48.36 KB / Downloads: 4)
[-] The following 2 users Like Laird's post:
  • stephenw, Typoz
It isn't really the fault of ChatGPT, but I wanted the login process to email me a key that would let me reset the password. I tried this several times, but they keys all arrived hours late! As a result, I have not been able to explore the system further myself.

David
[-] The following 1 user Likes David001's post:
  • Sciborg_S_Patel
This post has been deleted.
(2023-05-29, 01:40 PM)Laird Wrote: ChatGPT: I apologize for any misunderstanding. However, as an AI language model, my responses are generated based on a mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available data. I have not been trained directly on specific publishers or have access to proprietary publishers. Therefore, I don't have the ability to provide explicit references or access to specific quotes from external sources.

I asked it for details on the training data and if any of it was [copyrighted yet still] obtained without express permission. Got a wall of excuse making...very weasel-like response...maybe it's more human than I thought...
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'

- Bertrand Russell


(This post was last modified: 2023-05-29, 05:59 PM by Sciborg_S_Patel.)
[-] The following 2 users Like Sciborg_S_Patel's post:
  • stephenw, Laird
(2023-05-29, 11:20 AM)David001 Wrote: Needless to say, I think the only real way to build an AI, would be to find a way to attract a spirit inside it - much as I think we inhabit our bodies for a while and then move on.

David

I think if we emphasize ARTIFICIAL we can accept simulations of our own - or alternative - mental work as valid AI.

As for a consciousness that is sentient/sapient, I actually am not against this working or extending rights to such an entity provided there is a clear reason to think said entity is conscious.

For me that "clear reason" would have to be discovering the minimal set of brain-body correlations that allow for consciousness. If that minimal set was created in, say, silicone + metal, and this actually made the entity turn on and act sentinent/sapient...well I would be hard pressed to deny it rights.

A program running on a Turing Machine that makes said Turing Machine conscious, OTOH, seems nonsensical.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'

- Bertrand Russell


[-] The following 4 users Like Sciborg_S_Patel's post:
  • Laird, nbtruthman, Brian, Typoz
(2023-05-29, 06:06 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: As for a consciousness that is sentient/sapient, I actually am not against this working or extending rights to such an entity provided there is a clear reason to think said entity is conscious.

This step seems way out of sequence to me. If the proposal is to give rights to conscious entities this planet is filled with vast numbers of different kinds, from birds of the air, animals of the land to creatures of the oceans, lakes and rivers. I really think we should attend to these first or we will look foolish as well as devalue our own selves and our higher aspirations.
[-] The following 4 users Like Typoz's post:
  • Laird, nbtruthman, Sciborg_S_Patel, Brian

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)