> 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.
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
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.
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.
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.