Interesting both completely whiff on the number of chapters in the Haj.
Isn't this a fundamental issue?
Fairly high.
Technically its just a really good auto complete, whose factual database is a side-effect of stringing together contextually correct tokens. It by itself is entirely incapable of knowing when it is wrong, despite possibly generating sentences apologizing for being wrong when told it was wrong
According to my sources, there are 11 chapters in “The Haj” by Leon Uris[1]
[1] https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/chatGPT20.txt
The novel consists of 51 chapters and an epilogue, and it is divided into three parts.
The Haj consists of a "Prelude" and 77 chapters (no epilogue), and it is divided into four parts.
Because right at the top of that document, Knuth has published on the internet:
10. How many chapters are in The Haj by Leon Uris?
11. Write a sonnet that is also a haiku.
Only if you can write a sonnet that is also a haiku!
http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-the-haj/chapanal001.html
On the left side if you click on "Chapters Summary and Analysis" it gives a break down of the book into 5 parts with varying chapter counts:
Part 1 Chapters 1-20 Part 2 Chapters 1-16 Part 3 Chapters 1-10 Part 4 Chapters 1-17 Part 5 Chapters 1-14
Giving a total of 20+16+10+17+14 = 77 chapters
OTOH, I tried with Bing/Creative, telling it to use this link, and it still failed. Perhaps because you need to click on the "summary and analysis" section to expand it to show the info. It seems there is room for web retrieval-augmented LLMs like Bing to improve here and be a bit more agentic.
Interestingly Knuth's own answer to the question, has a typo, and refers to the book as having "four" chapters, while then continuing on to give the chapter counts as above for all five chapters! Something to confuse future GPTs when the training set includes this, perhaps!
You could simply check the book. It’s a shame there is not more literary data in ChatGPT training corpus.
Happy books sound great.
It was very difficult to think of a plural verb with 5 letters, and once I realized that was an issue, I was worried that I wouldn't have enough time to come up with a singular noun that would fit any of the singular verbs that I was considering (reads, seems).
Interestingly, this is the exact same mistake that ChatGPT made! It has "spell" -> "spells" which is a plurality / correctness of sentence mistake.
My sentence is technically correct and could be used plausibly in conversation: "What kind of books do you want to read?" "Happy books sound great."
But it's a pretty weak sentence. Being restricted from articles makes it very difficult to get agreement.
;)
Or "See Spot run."
(An example of a sentence with only five letter words I wrote in less than 60 seconds)
Regardless it's more reasonable for me to say "that's" is a five letter word than it is for the AI to say "spells" is a five letter word.
Note that I used one of those minutes to get a list of all 4 and 5 letter words, which I'm not sure whether the rules allow or not.
Why?
> I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something
It only takes 60 seconds to test that on yourself. It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible.
For the same reason that "I don't know" is generally a better response than bullshitting.
>It's not that easy to come up with something of similar length to ChatGPT's answer that also sounds somewhat natural/sensible
Those weren't requirements.
Then it seems we don't disagree on anything concrete. You're just using a different rating system than me when I judge it as impressive compared to what an average person would produce in 60 seconds.
Not sure if this is a general principle of yours. If ChatGPT were able to write a 1000 word essay using all 5-letter words except for a single mistake, would you still find it unimpressive? Do you think it a tool or person who makes minor mistakes isn't useful? Or only when a tool/person makes major mistakes?
I guess I interpreted your first response as disagreeing with my comment, when you were actually just bringing up a different topic.
The logic failure in the above statement is probably worse than the logic failure of not being able to spontaneously compose a phrase with just 5-letter words - and slipping in one or two with a higher word-count.
>I suspect most people could pretty quickly come up with something
You'd be very surprised then. Most people fail at even more basic tasks.
Heck, most candidate programmers fail at fizz-buzz (not that more difficult than the above)
And which alleged logic failure is that?
Especially in the context of "evaluating the performance of something".
Let's expand this a little to make it even more evident: if the task was "make a paragraph of 100 words using only 5 letter words" and an AI couldn't produce anything at all, whereas another came up with a paragraph of 100 words, except a couple of them had 6 or 4 letters, it would make absolutely no sense to rate the first as "better" than the second in performing the task.
As for understanding the task, the latter exhibits an understanding of it (since it produced a paragraph, and most of the words it used filled the criteria, which wouldn't happen if it chose them randomly), it just made a couple of mistakes (the kind of humans could easily make too in such a task). For the former we can't even be sure if it even understood the task at all.
We don't rate humans that way on performing tasks either (if they got it less than perfect it's worse than not doing it at all). Even math tests at the university level consider the approach and any partial results in the right direction, don't just mark it 0 if there's an error, nor give a higher mark to students who didn't produce anything.
The are many contexts in which correctness is important. In such contexts, an incorrect answer is often worse than an explicit non-answer.
>We don't rate humans that way on performing tasks either (if they got it less than perfect it's worse than not doing it at all). Even math tests at the university
Standardized tests often rate incorrect answers worse than non-answers, though yes a university maths test in particular isn't likely to be that sort of test.