All the things it’s supported to be good at are completely subjectively judged.
That’s why, u less you have a panel of experts in your back pocket, you need something with a yes or no answer to have an interesting discussion.
If people were discussing ChatGPT’s code writing ability, you’d complain that it wasn’t designed to do that either. The problem is that it was designed to transform inputs tk relatively beliveable outputs, representative of its training set. Great. That’s not super useful. It’s actual utility comes from its emergent behaviours.
Lemme know when you make a post detailing the opinions of some university “Transform inputs to outputs” professors. Until then, well ocmrinue to discuss its behaviour in observable, verifiable and useful areas.
We have people that assign numerical values to peoples ability to read and write every day. They are english teachers. They test all kinds of stuff like vocabulary, reading comprehension and grammar and in the end they assign grades to those skills. I don’t even need tiny professors in my pocket, they are just out there being teachers to children of all ages.
One of the task I have chatGPT was to name and describe 10 dwarven characters. Their names have to be adjectives like grumpy but the description can not be based on him being grumpy. He has to be something other than grumpy.
ChatGPT wrote 5 dwarves that followed the instructions and then defaulted to describing each dwarf based on their name. Sneezy was sickly, yawny was lazy and so on. This gives a score of 5/10 on the task I gave it.
There is a tapestry of clever tests you can give it with language in focus to test the ability of a natural language model without giving it a bunch of numbers.
OK, you go get a panel of highschool English teachers together and see how useful their opinions are. Lemme know when your post is up, I’ll be interested then.
All the things it’s supported to be good at are completely subjectively judged.
That’s why, u less you have a panel of experts in your back pocket, you need something with a yes or no answer to have an interesting discussion.
If people were discussing ChatGPT’s code writing ability, you’d complain that it wasn’t designed to do that either. The problem is that it was designed to transform inputs tk relatively beliveable outputs, representative of its training set. Great. That’s not super useful. It’s actual utility comes from its emergent behaviours.
Lemme know when you make a post detailing the opinions of some university “Transform inputs to outputs” professors. Until then, well ocmrinue to discuss its behaviour in observable, verifiable and useful areas.
We have people that assign numerical values to peoples ability to read and write every day. They are english teachers. They test all kinds of stuff like vocabulary, reading comprehension and grammar and in the end they assign grades to those skills. I don’t even need tiny professors in my pocket, they are just out there being teachers to children of all ages.
One of the task I have chatGPT was to name and describe 10 dwarven characters. Their names have to be adjectives like grumpy but the description can not be based on him being grumpy. He has to be something other than grumpy.
ChatGPT wrote 5 dwarves that followed the instructions and then defaulted to describing each dwarf based on their name. Sneezy was sickly, yawny was lazy and so on. This gives a score of 5/10 on the task I gave it.
There is a tapestry of clever tests you can give it with language in focus to test the ability of a natural language model without giving it a bunch of numbers.
OK, you go get a panel of highschool English teachers together and see how useful their opinions are. Lemme know when your post is up, I’ll be interested then.
Sorry, I thought we were having a discussion when we were supposed to just be smug cunts. I will correct my behaviour in the future.