That’s not intelligence that’s computers having better memory than humans. Useful, certainly, but hardly skynet.
If you're saying that it is not possible to change the details enough to avoid the model being able to answer that type of question, I think you are admitting that the model has learned a generalized ability to answer questions of that class, and is not actually using its memory to answer at all.
I don't care about whether it learned that generalized ability from seeing examples of the question and answer, which it then deduced an algorithm for and generalized -- that's how most people learn most things.
As an aside, I’m really starting to hate these threads on here, people are constantly reading words that aren’t there in search of gotcha-it’s-skynet. It’s not. It’s just pattern matching and randomness with a giant amount of information encoded.
I'm not sure what to say, other than that if you'd like to have less frustrating conversations, you could do better than showing up with hearsay where someone asked a question they thought was unique, but it wasn't, and it can't be modified to be unique and then asked again, and you aren't willing to tell us what it was, and possibly don't know yourself.
It is not possible to have a serious conversation about your claim, and that's not because it is being intentionally misunderstood.
> skynet
You're the only person mentioning skynet. The conversation is about a ridiculous claim made up-thread that GPT-4 cannot reason or understand anything, which is disprovable within a few minutes of using it thoughtfully.