Teaching GPT Word Reflections | Hacker News Reader

Teaching GPT Word Reflections

3 pointsnothing00012 comments

r(man,young,age,old) r(man,rich, wealth, poor) now find w2 and w4 for r(_, creative,_, unordered)

Here's a revised relation with the words more similar to "creative" in the second position and more similar to "unordered" in the fourth position:

    r(task, innovative, arrangement, haphazard)

In this relation, "task" is related to "innovative," and "arrangement" is the property or characteristic in question. The opposite of "innovative" is "haphazard," which implies a lack of structure and planning. This highlights the contrast between a creative and structured approach in an "innovative" task, and a more unstructured and haphazard approach in a "haphazard" task, which may be less ordered and more unordered.

View on HN

can you provide some more detail? i tried reproducing and got very different results.

both chatgpt and the gpt playground return:

w2: creative w4: unordered

when fed the prompt:

r(man,young,age,old) r(man,rich, wealth, poor) now find w2 and w4 for r(_, creative,_, unordered)

this is very interesting to me because i am building a mind-mapping tool that is powered by GPT and im currently working on optimizing the prompts to get it to return quality relationships.

It seems I used a lot of prompts: Some of them follow. Define the projection of word1 with respect to word2 as a word that is has a similar meaning to word1 and word2 and that is usually used with word1 -- The projection of word1 with respect to word2 is word1 when both words don't have anything in common in other case it should be a synonym -- The projection never increase the level of the word, so the projection of big can't be huge, the projection of two words look for the common thing between the words but always smaller than those words -- the projection should never add meaning to add1 and be more specific that word2 and should be something commonly found in situation that involves both words -- in the case that word2 is more general that word1 the proyection should be word1, so the projection of dog and animal should be dog -- What is the projection of hard respect to clear? -- If you project word1 with respect to word2 and it gives word3 then the projection of word3 with respect to word2 should be word3 -- what is the projection of dog with respect to animal? -- Now we define the reflection of word1 with respect to word2 so that first you compute the projection of word1 with respect to word2 given word3 and now you compute a word that is the poryection of word1 with respect the opposite of word3 -- the projection of dog with respect to "not-dog" should be nothing because there is no common thing for those words -- what is the projection of hard with respect to clear? -- what is the reflection of hard with respect to clear -- The projection p(w1,22) should never mean the contrary of w1 -- the reflection r(hard,clear) should be thing that are hard but not clear -- r(hard,clear) = something difficult to learn -- r(rich,honest) -- give me an insightful example of reflection of two words -- you should put more emphasis in the first word, so the reflection should clearly imply intelligence is that is possible -- I don't think that timid implies intelligence in general -- you are getting better at grasping the concept of reflection -- Give me another insightful example of reflection -- you are still not putting enough emphasis in the first word, the solution should mean creative without any doubt -- you use the word may be, but it should be necessary, so spontaneous doesn't imply creative -- that is better -- give another example of reflection -- Reflection and projection could be well used when word1 could be defined as having a small number of characteristics and projection and reflections help us to understand better the meaning of that words and how it interact with other words -- Give me an example of reflection in which the first word is composed of a small number of useful characteristics and word2 is related to one of those characteristic in a positive or negative way -- That is not correct when you project efficient over inefficient there is nothing in common, so the result is nothing. then the negation of nothing is all and the projection of efficient with respect to all is efficieent -- the p(w1, all) is w1 since you look for commonalities but also inside of the meaning of w1 that is more specific or smaller in grade or cuantity that ww1 -- Explain to me the concept of projection used in our conversation -- some axioms p(w1,w2) = w3 then p(w3,w2) = w3 -- You should be able to recover the meaning of w1 if you know the projection of w1 with respect to some other words. Give me an example in which you project w1 over two words w2 and w3 and then you try to recover the meaning of w1 using the computed projections -- To be useful you should try to project w1 with respect to words that are not very similar to w1 so you capture a little of information in each projection and then from those tips you can recover later the meaning of w1 -- you should look for words such that the projections over such words capture the complete meaning of w1 widout ambiguity -- give me an example using w1 and other three words for the projection using the indication of above -- give me the words to project rich and recover the meaning of rich using 5 words to project rich -- You don't know the projection of rich over opulent because some rich people are not opulent -- use 5 words to project the word love -- r(love, passion) -- the reflection r(w1,w2) does not have any of w2 characteristics -- r(love,passion) -- you say not as intense but it should mean necessary not having -- it should me love without passion -- that's correct ~ ~ ~

Reply on news.ycombinator.com