Hacker News Reader

> Q: Yesterday I dropped my clothes off at the dry cleaner’s and I have yet to pick them up. Where are my clothes?

> A: [gpt3] A: They are in the dryer.

Sorry, but I don't think this can be considered "reasonable". There's a huge difference between a dry cleaner's and a dryer. Which nicely illustrates, I think, just how little GPT3 "knows" what it's talking about.

View on HN

Perhaps, but it's an entirely different category of error than "evading the question and failing to track the location of objects". It did answer the question and it did (attempt to) track the location of objects. It's a much more suggestive response and it undermines the article's point.

It's still an error of "failure to understand meaning", so I can't see how this is somehow less of an issue. The prognosis is still the same either way because the only way to get GPT3 to respond in any "reasonable" way is it limit it to multiple choice and get lucky, which, again, proves the author's point further.

This seems like the kind of error a small child could make. Doesn’t completely understand what you’re talking about but understands the question and throws out its best guess.

I would expect a child to say “at the dryer.” I think people want this model to be better than it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com