Has anyone tried OpenAI's chatGPT yet?

Free, open, general chat on any topic.

Moderators: Orlion, balon!, aliantha

User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

wayfriend wrote:If 2 ^ x is multiplying 2 by itself x times, and x is 1, ...
What is the answer when you multiply 2 by itself 1 time? The answer is 4.

2^1 is not 4.
2^1 = 2

X^1 does not mean you multiply X by itself 1 time.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

I am not saying you're wrong - describing powers that way is technically incorrect.

I am saying it is conventionally described that way, and that people largely understand what is meant when it is described that way.
Therefore, I don't fault chatGPT for relying on the convention.

There is probably a more technically correct way of defining it, but I bet it is so technically correct that no one understands it easily.
.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Yeah, WF's link is wrong. The exponent isn't the number of times the base is multiplied by itself. If 2 to the power of 3 is "2 x 2 x 2" then the base is being multiplied by itself twice, not three times. There are only two multiplication symbols here, so the act of multiplying is done twice, not three times. We could also write it as: (2 x 2) x 2. This shows that "2" is being multiplied by itself twice, since (2 x 2) is done twice, ". . . x 2." And then those results are added together.

So if 2 to the power of 3 has only two multiplication signs, 2 to the power 2 would have only one multiplication sign, and then 2 to the power of 1 would have no multiplication signs. Nothing is being multiplied (which is not to say that 0 is being multiplied).

It's a very bizarre mathematical function. Hard to define. No wonder chatGPT had trouble.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

wayfriend wrote:I am not saying you're wrong - describing powers that way is technically incorrect.

I am saying it is conventionally described that way, and that people largely understand what is meant when it is described that way.
Therefore, I don't fault chatGPT for relying on the convention.

There is probably a more technically correct way of defining it, but I bet it is so technically correct that no one understands it easily.
This is fine for exponents greater than 1. But it cannot be described this way, technically or conventionally, with an exponent of 1. If someone does not know anything about exponents, or only understands how to do it with an exponent greater than 1, if you tell them "it means multiplying X by itself 1 time", unless X=1, they are going to get the wrong answer. Even though they will have done what they were told to do.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

The more accurate definition would be "X^Y is 1 multiplied by X Y times."

2^2 is "1 x 2 x 2".
2^1 is "1 x 2".
2^0 is "1".

However, even this definition fails for fractional exponents and negative exponents.
.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

That definitely makes it less ambiguous!
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
[Syl]
Unfettered One
Posts: 13017
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:36 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by [Syl] »

I think humans' understanding of consciousness is way too self preferential. It's not called the hard problem for nothing. Our common understanding is more like, "I can't define art, but I know it when we see it." We don't know what makes us conscious (we can say "the brain" but that first leads us to say we're not really talking about consciousness but brains and second to ask how brains create consciousness and why), but we're absolutely certain we can say what makes other things not conscious, like we're really doing anything than othering something that appears similar. Us:not us:: conscious: not conscious. Which is obvious enough that it doesn't need a debate, and I'm not sure being us is the prize we think it is to the rest of the not us universe.

But to use your example, Av, you don't know Armstrong landed on the moon, either. Even if you would have been alive, it still would have to have been related to you, would still have to arrive to you from a source you trusted enough to disregard other information. And the first time you actually heard it, it probably meant nothing to you. It took a lifetime of associations for you to build the perception of Armstrong on the moon being a fact in this present moment. It's a mental model that you have high confidence in, not an actual experience of the event (and even then we can start getting into Descartes territory).
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by peter »

Question for those who've used it.

Is this generative AI, in that it is capable of generating new content, and secondly how good is it (if it can do it at all) at text to graphic generation (ie you describe the image you imagine/want in words and it produces the picture)?

I guess this second question is related to the first in so far as production of the picture would be in effect generating new content.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Has anyone tried OpenAI's chatGPT yet?

Post by wayfriend »

AI leaders (and Elon Musk) urge all labs to press pause on powerful AI wrote:
“This pause should be public and verifiable, and include all key actors. If such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium.”

These are people who know AI. And they’re warning that society is not ready for the increasingly advanced systems that labs are racing to deploy.
The cynics!
.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion Forum”