▲ 434 ▼ Ask ChatGPT to pick a number between 1 and 100 (jlai.lu) submitted 2 years ago by ElCanut@jlai.lu to c/technology@beehaw.org 148 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) The correctness of the sampling process still needs a proof. Like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) What you've described would be like looking at a chart of various fluid boiling points at atmospheric pressure and being like "Wow, water boils at 100 C!" It would only be interesting if that somehow weren't the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where is the "Wow!" in this post? It states a fact, like "Water boils at 100C under 1 atm", and shows that the student (ChatGPT) has correctly reproduced the experiment. Why do you think schools keep teaching that "Water boils at 100C under 1 atm"? If it's so obvious, should they stop putting it on the test and failing those who say it boils at "69C, giggity"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Derek feeling the need to comment that the bias in the training data correlates with the bias of the corrected output of a commercial product just seemed really bizarre to me. Maybe it's got the same appeal as a zoo or something, I never really got into watching animals be animals in a zoo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago Hm? Watching animals be animals at a zoo, is a way better sampling of how animals are animals, than for example watching that wildlife "documentary" where they'd throw lemmings of a cliff "for dramatic effect" (a "commercially corrected bias"?). In this case, the "corrected output" is just 42, not 37, but as the temperature increases on the Y axis, we get a glimpse of internal biases, which actually let through other patterns of the training data, like the 37. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) What you've described would be like looking at a chart of various fluid boiling points at atmospheric pressure and being like "Wow, water boils at 100 C!" It would only be interesting if that somehow weren't the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where is the "Wow!" in this post? It states a fact, like "Water boils at 100C under 1 atm", and shows that the student (ChatGPT) has correctly reproduced the experiment. Why do you think schools keep teaching that "Water boils at 100C under 1 atm"? If it's so obvious, should they stop putting it on the test and failing those who say it boils at "69C, giggity"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Derek feeling the need to comment that the bias in the training data correlates with the bias of the corrected output of a commercial product just seemed really bizarre to me. Maybe it's got the same appeal as a zoo or something, I never really got into watching animals be animals in a zoo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago Hm? Watching animals be animals at a zoo, is a way better sampling of how animals are animals, than for example watching that wildlife "documentary" where they'd throw lemmings of a cliff "for dramatic effect" (a "commercially corrected bias"?). In this case, the "corrected output" is just 42, not 37, but as the temperature increases on the Y axis, we get a glimpse of internal biases, which actually let through other patterns of the training data, like the 37. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where is the "Wow!" in this post? It states a fact, like "Water boils at 100C under 1 atm", and shows that the student (ChatGPT) has correctly reproduced the experiment. Why do you think schools keep teaching that "Water boils at 100C under 1 atm"? If it's so obvious, should they stop putting it on the test and failing those who say it boils at "69C, giggity"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Derek feeling the need to comment that the bias in the training data correlates with the bias of the corrected output of a commercial product just seemed really bizarre to me. Maybe it's got the same appeal as a zoo or something, I never really got into watching animals be animals in a zoo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago Hm? Watching animals be animals at a zoo, is a way better sampling of how animals are animals, than for example watching that wildlife "documentary" where they'd throw lemmings of a cliff "for dramatic effect" (a "commercially corrected bias"?). In this case, the "corrected output" is just 42, not 37, but as the temperature increases on the Y axis, we get a glimpse of internal biases, which actually let through other patterns of the training data, like the 37. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Derek feeling the need to comment that the bias in the training data correlates with the bias of the corrected output of a commercial product just seemed really bizarre to me. Maybe it's got the same appeal as a zoo or something, I never really got into watching animals be animals in a zoo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago Hm? Watching animals be animals at a zoo, is a way better sampling of how animals are animals, than for example watching that wildlife "documentary" where they'd throw lemmings of a cliff "for dramatic effect" (a "commercially corrected bias"?). In this case, the "corrected output" is just 42, not 37, but as the temperature increases on the Y axis, we get a glimpse of internal biases, which actually let through other patterns of the training data, like the 37. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago Hm? Watching animals be animals at a zoo, is a way better sampling of how animals are animals, than for example watching that wildlife "documentary" where they'd throw lemmings of a cliff "for dramatic effect" (a "commercially corrected bias"?). In this case, the "corrected output" is just 42, not 37, but as the temperature increases on the Y axis, we get a glimpse of internal biases, which actually let through other patterns of the training data, like the 37. permalink fedilink source parent
