It's still incredible you can coerce a language model to produce this, but it's not a new game, I've had it on my phone for a few years: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rohitpailw...
Ride those coattails and take other peoples ideas as your own!
But it is not synthesizing an understanding of the game of chess.
> And to the best of you knowledge this type of puzzle does not currently exist?
and it responded:
> As far as I am aware, this specific type of puzzle with the given rules and mechanics does not currently exist in the puzzle game genre. However, there may be similar games out there that share some similarities with this puzzle.
That response is not generated (as far as I am aware) by any form of logical analysis or understanding, it's just generated text based on its training and prompting. It was asked to come up with something "new", and will continue to claim that as it was part of its prompts.
So yes, this may not be a failing of ChatGPT, but of users understanding of it. You cannot take what it states as "fact" as anything other than potential BS. But it is an incredible tool for using to generate text and code.
We are still early in its development though, who knows where it will be in 18 months time!
Looking at the response the way you suggest, it's clear it's given a boilerplate answer that would seem likely given the context it has found itself in.
If words not right said for listen like now, think you might not be smart as is tho.
And as for whether ChatGPT has an agenda or not, that is beside the point. People can and do use it as a tool for plagiarism while trying to hide behind a layer of plausible deniability provided by the "black box" of the model. This cannot be allowed to continue. This is why we need to push back, just as the GP is doing.
> People can and do use it as a tool for plagiarism while trying to hide behind a layer of plausible deniability provided by the "black box" of the model. This cannot be allowed to continue. This is why we need to push back, just as the GP is doing.
This is absolutely preposterous. People are going to lie and plagiarize whether they have a chat bot do it for them or not. The existence of a chat bot isn’t going to be the make or break in this equation and if anything, the people using it for that purpose should be rightfully vilified rather than the tool.
The consequences actually are quite serious. A person falsifies work product once in an academic or professional setting and their career is severely impacted. This is why people are "surprised" to encounter such a BS generator operating under the trademark of a reputable company.
It’s almost as if you ignored everything I said, cherry-picked a random part, then went on a tangent about a different part of my comment. All without actually comprehending what the things you replied to said.
The difference is, with a chatbot it might not even be a conscious act, the chatbot is doing it for you and you're not aware that it's happening.
I've had it generate search terms that could be used to verify "facts" in is answer. Then I'd give it the page results and have it adjust and source it's answer using that.
Have not tried it yet, but perhaps Bing's implementation is a step in that direction?
More dangerous than ChatGPT is the sheer gullibility of many people putting it to use.
This obviously isn't the intention of the software, it's just an LLM after all, but there's something missing in the experience when it comes to working with code. Hopefully this sort of issue can be corrected.
Intuitively it makes sense to me that broken code would often be very close to questions about how to achieve something in code.
Some want to talk of these LLMs as approximating an intelligent actor. If that's the case, then we also need to assign metaphors for things like deceit and coercion. We also need to consider assignments of novelty to what's generated and think of their rights as quasi-sentient, etc.
Some want to talk about them as probabilistic text token generators, which brings the benefit of not being intelligent or independent actors at all really but also then comes with the issue of intellectual property theft in training them on information not licenced for reproduction or commercial use.
The industry prefers to thread the needle between these as the former case brings some pretty wild conversations and the latter may mean lawsuits.
Is it? Even if it’s fair to assume that now, we have no idea if that will remain true or when the shift will happen.
The CEO of OpenAI is the same scammer who scanned eyeballs in return for a non-existing cryptocurrency[1] and the company itself is criticised all the time[2].
[1]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-...
[2]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/01/addressing-criticism-opena...
There is no reason to assume “the CEO himself” would personally do it. History is full of bad CEOs making harmful decisions and they definitely don’t need to (and often wouldn’t even be able to) do it on their own. Sam (presumably) isn’t out there personally scamming more people for their retina scans, but someone is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34981352
For instance, I once found what I thought was an ingeniously original idea about about how TV is really just a kind of reflection of reality akin to Plato's Cave. I immediately got started writing a thesis about it, but I didn't have to search for long on the topic before I found an entire book written on this way of thinking about television. I wasn't really disappointed, because in the back of my head I knew that it had too be too good to be true that I'd be first with such a great idea. In any case I kept working with the thesis, and I still did got a good grade on it despite the idea not being revolutionary.
The questions I now wonder about is, can ChatGPT forget? Or could it be that ChatGPT was never exposed to this game, but could still infer it through other game rules, such as those for Soduko? Which I guess opens up another rabbit hole on if or how AI can be creative. Which I guess opens up another rabbit hole on how creativity works in general.
There is no way, the game type is centuries old, you can read this giant wikipedia articles about games like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_square
ChatGPT "inventing" this is like thinking it invented chess.
Point about magic square is that every culture invents games like that, it is one of the most basic puzzle ideas humans have, I don't see how ChatGPT can't have that in its training set.
All that you’ve done is shown that similar types of puzzles exist. Which, I mean, is kind of the point of a generative AI.
“Games like this” exist. Does this specific game exist?
It’s not enough to say “a lot of games with similar rules exist” and if anything, that just shows that a generative AI is good at what it does: break down the rules of a game and make modifications to make what is potentially a new game.
If you can show an example of this exact game having existed for centuries, then you have a point. But showing that magic squares and similar games exist… just shows that magic squares and similar games exist, not that the algorithm incorrectly said this is a new game.
> It’s not enough to say “a lot of games with similar rules exist” and if anything, that just shows that a generative AI is good at what it does: break down the rules of a game and make modifications to make what is potentially a new game.
No it doesn't, even if that is the case it just shows that it adds random variations. Since we only see the trimmed subset of ideas it generates that people found good enough to post, the smart one is the person.
You would need to prove that ChatGPT actually consistently generates working puzzle ideas that are novel to convince anyone that it actually does so. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so all I need to do is find plausible explanations to how ChatGPT found it, you would need much better evidence to convince people it actually did make a novel game.
If this were the case, it would have been trivial for you to find a game with its written rules described and which match the one generated.
You have done nothing but say that is the case. You haven’t actually proven that’s the case.
ChatGPT can’t magically infer the rules of the game from screenshots, and you have only shown that similar games exist and have existed for centuries. But that is not the same as saying that this specific game has and that ChatGPT just pulled it out of its dataset.
That is the extraordinary claim that you don’t have evidence for but are acting like it’s right there obviously out in the open for everyone to see.
Search engines doesn't work like that. You are basically asking me the equivalent of proving that a photo isn't depicting a ghost. No, I can't prove that, I can however come up with examples showing how the photo could have been created even if it wasn't a ghost.
If you want to prove that ghosts are real you need plenty of photos from lots of angles and situations, or videos, and from many sources to show that it isn't all made up by a single person. The equivalent of that would be if they had made ChatGPT generate 100 different working games for example, that would be much more believable. But a single case of a game that already exists and has countless texts describing similar games? It just looks like random chance that got handpicked or plagiarism.
This isn't a court trial, I am not going to sue ChatGPT for plagiarism here, it is just a discussion whether it is reasonable to believe ChatGPT can generate novel puzzle games.
Edit: But do note that since ChatGPT can find such ideas that are hard to find with a search engine, that makes ChatGPT very useful in a way search engines aren't. So I am not saying it doesn't add value. Just that people seem to say ChatGPT does a lot of thing that it doesn't seem to be able to do.
Edit again:
> That is the extraordinary claim that you don’t have evidence for but are acting like it’s right there obviously out in the open for everyone to see.
Yes, you think it is obvious that ChatGPT is capable of very creative and productive thinking. But most people don't think that, to them that is an extraordinary claim. I'm not here to convince you, I'm here to explain to you why you aren't convincing anyone with what you say. People like you were convinced by articles like this before the discussion even began.
The claim was that it pulled the game out of its dataset. If this were the case, I would argue it would absolutely be trivial to find them. It’s not some concept that can’t be described in words or would be hard to quantify. The rules have been provided, and, assuming they were plagiarized from somewhere else, would be listed verbatim or close to it.
If a student plagiarized on their work, whether in written form or in code, it’s been trivially easy to find the exact work that was copied from. It generally takes me a few seconds of searching to find it.
This is the same. If these rules existed in a dataset, then it should be equally easy to pull them up and prove the plagiarism. If all you can find is similar puzzles, you can’t just throw your hands up and say “yep, gottem”. That’s just not how this works.
ChatGPT uses word vectors, it wont use the same words but variants of the words. You can't search for that. Cases where word vectors only maps to single words with no variations for every word are very rare, so ChatGPT is very good at plagiarising things without reproducing exactly, it just rarely fails at it.
> If a student plagiarized on their work, whether in written form or in code, it’s been trivially easy to find the exact work that was copied from. It generally takes me a few seconds of searching to find it.
No it isn't, they just change the words and rewrites it until it no longer looks the same. ChatGPT is trained to rewrite texts like that to avoid triggering trivial plagiarism detectors. They train it to produce the same text, but with different words, producing exactly the same text is punished.
Do you think students plagiarizing don’t do the exact same thing? Clearly someone has never actually dealt with plagiarized work. This is plagiarizing 101. The structure remains the same even if they use synonyms. Considering it’s trivially easy to find in code which is magnitudes harder to pull off, I would still argue it should be easy as pie to find this supposed set of rules.
Your point is not very credible without proof of this game existing and ChatGPT pulling it from this source. Without showing this supposed proto-game having existed with rules the ChatGPT can pull from, then all you’ve done is wave your hands around and yelled “similar games exist so this can’t possibly be uniquely generated” and that’s not a very compelling argument.
You rewrite the structure of the text, you don't just use synonyms. ChatGPT is capable of rewriting text to a different structure while keeping the meaning, I hope you are aware of that.
Anyway, even if you just change the words to synonyms it wont be easy to find in a search engine. Search engines aren't very good at finding matches to synonyms. Google tries, but in doing so they fail to find more specific texts like scientific publications or documentation, so no search engines aren't good at finding plagiarism.
Edit: And you make it sound like most plagiarism is found. No, that isn't the case, most plagiarism is not found out because it is a very hard problem to solve. Only the most blatant cases are caught. For humans that is reasonable, for AI we can be stricter since there isn't a humans career at stake.
Got it, so you’ve never actually dealt with plagiarized work. You should have just led with that.
I have literally said, from actual experience, that this is the case. But I guess discarding that and pretending it was never said and that the opposite is true is I’m sure an easier position to hold.
For students they are probably easier to catch since they use the same tools you do, they use a search engine to find an article and plagiarises that. But ChatGPT takes deep discussions from reddit or stack overflow, I can't find those with a search engine.
Yet here we are. Dozen comments later and still no written set of rules produced which definitively shows that it was copied.
Come back when you actually have that and maybe we can continue this conversation.
> But ChatGPT takes deep discussions from reddit or stack overflow, I can't find those with a search engine.
Where do you think the answers come from? It’s not like Google has a massive index island around Reddit and SO.
So maybe these rules are described in Japanese? Most similar games comes from Japan, Kakuro, Sudoku etc. Would your plagiarism detection method of Googling it find a Japanese source? I doubt it. But ChatGPT transcends language barriers, it can translate to English just fine.
[0] https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/18583143573725211...
this comment thread started with this link, this is exactly the same game
ChatGPT can't deduce the rules of the game using the screenshots. They would need to be written somewhere for them to come out of its dataset. And so far, nobody has shown a game with the rules in a format that ChatGPT could consume.
Why is it so hard to believe that a generative AI generated this game from similar ones which exist? That is literally the purpose of it, after all.
there's a quite long article from Stephen Wolfram about how it works and this is why I belive it can't do that: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-...
However it generates a text, that text may describe what for practical purposes is a new invention.
And how do we think exactly? Don't we have a brain trained on input (livable experience, knowledge from books, school, videos, conversations, etc) and generating text based on probabilities (weighted sets of neurons with weights built from that set)?
If I told you “We need a brand new, never-never-before-seen puzzle for our next game release.” and you searched Google for “brand new, never-before-seen puzzle”, found a puzzle game with those words in its marketing copy and pitched it to me, that would be some combination of unintelligent and dishonest behavior. Like, surprisingly so. It’s different from forgetting some puzzle you played with as a little kid and thinking you made it up, or creating a puzzle you’d never seen but has been made before.
We train it to predict the next word based on the training data, that is true. But we still have no idea what kind of internal structures said training actually produces inside of neural net. It sure as hell isn't just a "stochastic parrot", though, which is rather obvious if you ever tried giving it a complicated multi-step task and solve it while "thinking out loud".
I was answering the question “But how is this different from a person?”. Being asked for something new and finding something that already exists with the word “new” in front of it isn’t normal human behavior. That’s how it’s different from a person.
Zooming out a bit, I think there’s some confusion in this whole chain. There’s a common topic about ChatGPT you could call Question of Creativity. If you ask for a new poem, it just smashes together its patterns around poems. You can debate if this is creativity, and if not, how are humans different. A few comments up, someone brought in a different idea you could call New Matching. If you ask for a new poem it will just grab you a poem that had the words “new poem” in front of it. New Matching is a different idea than Question of Creativity. The person I replied to seemed to be mistaking one idea for the other.
I don't know what introspective is, but I know it when I see it. People around me genuinely come up with new concepts---some of what they came up decades ago with is now ubiquitous---and the sources is often not language. It comes from observing the world with your eyes, from physical or natural mechanisms. If you want to put it into the language of models: we just have so much more data to draw on. And we have a good feedback mechanism. If you invent a toy, you can build it and test it. Language models only get second hand feedback from users. They cannot prototype stuff if the data isn't out there already.
Wouldn't your "something from scratch" idea, be based on your "training set" (knowledge you've learned in your life), and ways of re-arranging it inside your brain, using neuron stuctures created, shaped, and reiforced in certain ways by exposure to said training set and various kinds of re-inforcement?
Still a training set though. There's no some magic non-training part creating stuff from zero, out of pure determination!
In principle, ChatGPT cannot forget. It is trained on data and this training will stay as long as it didn't get deleted or destroyed. In other words, in all cases of someone having made ChatGPT tell something, it should be possible to repeat this. Perhaps in some case it will be effectively impossible for some rare combination of prompt and random seed, so one could say, ChatGPT forgot something. But this is not the same as people forgetting something.
Or during the training something was not considered important, but this is not forgetting, this is ignoring.
Ironically, it seems to me that you are anthropomorphizing ChatGPT a bit too much here. It has no reason to lie so I think it's more likely that it just doesn't know such game exists. It probably came up with it independently or doesn't have a strong memory of it. In some respect, it would be even more impressive if it was actually "lying through its teeth" because it would imply the AI had some kind of hidden agenda.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "remembers" either. My gut says I want to say I'd be more comfortable with that word for a web cache, but due to my understanding of human memory as constructive maybe I should be more comfortable with that for an LLM than for any other software.
Happy to be convinced otherwise.
However, it will fail immediately when you ask it to print an ASCII chart of Harry Potter's family tree, because it does not actually "know" anything, and it will make all sorts of odd connections.
The clearest observation I can make of ChatGPT's success is that the general public is quite ill-informed and easily impressed by theatrics, both lessons we've already learned from politics.
To demonstrate this a bit, I asked for HP's family tree as JSON, suitable for use in a charting library, and this is what it came up with:
---
{ "nodes": [ { "id": "Harry Potter" }, { "id": "Ginny Weasley" }, { "id": "James Potter" }, { "id": "Lily Potter (née Evans)" }, { "id": "Arthur Weasley" }, { "id": "Molly Weasley (née Prewett)" }, { "id": "Fleamont Potter" }, { "id": "Euphemia Potter" }, { "id": "Mr. Evans" }, { "id": "Mrs. Evans" }, { "id": "Vernon Dursley" }, { "id": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)" }, { "id": "Dudley Dursley" }, { "id": "James Sirius Potter" }, { "id": "Albus Severus Potter" }, { "id": "Lily Luna Potter" } ], "links": [ { "source": "Harry Potter", "target": "James Potter" }, { "source": "Harry Potter", "target": "Lily Potter (née Evans)" }, { "source": "Ginny Weasley", "target": "Arthur Weasley" }, { "source": "Ginny Weasley", "target": "Molly Weasley (née Prewett)" }, { "source": "James Potter", "target": "Fleamont Potter" }, { "source": "James Potter", "target": "Euphemia Potter" }, { "source": "Lily Potter (née Evans)", "target": "Mr. Evans" }, { "source": "Lily Potter (née Evans)", "target": "Mrs. Evans" }, { "source": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)", "target": "Mr. Evans" }, { "source": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)", "target": "Mrs. Evans" }, { "source": "Vernon Dursley", "target": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)" }, { "source": "Dudley Dursley", "target": "Vernon Dursley" }, { "source": "Dudley Dursley", "target": "Petunia Dursley (née Evans)" }, { "source": "James Sirius Potter", "target": "Harry Potter" }, { "source": "James Sirius Potter", "target": "Ginny Weasley" }, { "source": "Albus Severus Potter", "target": "Harry Potter" }, { "source": "Albus Severus Potter", "target": "Ginny Weasley" }, { "source": "Lily Luna Potter", "target": "Harry Potter" }, { "source": "Lily Luna Potter", "target": "Ginny Weasley" } ] }
---
Sorry about HN formatting, but you get the idea. This looks fairly accurate to me. What about this demonstrates less "reasoning" then turning it into an ASCII chart?
Anecdotal, but I've not yet had any success in producing any non-trivial code with ChatGPT. It has, however, produced copious amounts of bullshit with plausible variable names... :)
It's pretty good in JS, it sucks in Rust
That game is NOT the same game. It's similar but the games are different.
I get people are excited about a chatbot which doesn’t suck, but ideally it wouldn’t turn off critical thinking skills.
Seems to be similar to a game called Kakuro. This [1] repo even contains a similar rule:
> The algorithm exceed the rules that the sum over a row must equal to the value on the left and the sum over a column must be equal to the value on the bottom of the cells with the diagonal and one or two numbers
Loose quote from I don't remember who, early 90s.
"Rule 34: If you can imagine it, it exists as Internet porn."
[1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Sumplete (search "Worldwide" and extend the time range)
[1]: https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=sumplet...
[2]: https://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?query=suplent...
Would be nice if GPT could dump the source of how it came to such a solution, if it generated the game by random chance via combining various unrelated chunks of text and mixing up the rules, or if it used some text describing the game you linked.
Your game involves addition. chatGPT is using subtraction.