The fact that they can’t means they’re just a toy ultimately.
It is not a toy, because language is not a toy. Language is a ridiculously powerful tool we have as humans, we just take it for granted because we are very good at it.
What ChatGPT allows us is to evaluate the usefulness of language without all the other intellectual tools we have, like mathematics, logic, physics and self perception.
So, the fact that a GPT model can do all those things while being just a language model is extraordinary. It is an idea serializer. Written language is not the idea, is just the serialization of the idea, the human thought.
We serialize our ideas, and with a GPT we use the serialization to leverage some of the connections and behaviours of the idea, without actually understanding the meaning.
This makes both tools, language for humans and GPT for computers, a powerful abstraction that allows us to not need to think about every detail because some of the logic in the ideas is covered by the serialization that language performs over the idea.
I find all of this fascinating.
Add the other parts of the human brain (a GPT is only the Broca's area analogue) to have real logic and physics and mathematics understanding, and the predictions about AI will be true.
Training math is likely hard because the corpus of training data is so much less because the computers themselves do our math as it relates to computers. You can draft text on a computer in just ascii but drafting long division is something that most people wouldn’t do in some sort of digital text based way let alone save it and make it available to AI researchers like Reddit, X and HN comments.
I expect LLMs to be bad at math. That’s ok, they are bad because the computers themselves are so good at math.
As far as mathematical thinking goes this doesn't seem an interesting metric at all. Do you believe that optimizing for this metric will indeed lead to reliable mathematical thinking?
I am of the idea that LLMs are not suited to maths, but since I'm not an expert of the field I'm always looking for counterarguments. Of course we can always wait another couple of years and the question will be resolved.
I’ve seen some truly absurd examples, like people complaining that it didn’t have the latest updates to some obscure research functional logic proof language that has maybe a hundred users globally!
GPT 4 already has markedly superior English comprehension and basic logic than most people I interact with on a daily basis. It’s only outperformed by a handful of people, all of whom are “high achievers” such as entrepreneurs, professors, or consultants.
I actively simplify my speech when talking to ordinary people to avoid overwhelming them. I don’t need to when instructing GPT.
https://chatgpt.com/share/c10c540f-b9c2-4714-ae6b-77460b900b...
Also HN: "ChatGPT just needs to spell its name."
Besides, only half of HN is all self-driving has to be 100x safer. the other half keeps bringing up the fact that Waymo is here and working, just not everywhere yet.
Doctors: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240424/Opportunities-and....
Lawyers: https://www.ft.com/content/2365b275-8b0b-4ae9-bc4a-15c6e0776...
Or my fav: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/31/guardian-microsoft-generati...