All of stochastic_parrot's Comments + Replies

“We’ll, if I wasn’t conscious, I never would have pressed that start button”

Fairly minor but I think I see an unmentioned error in the "41" section:

the first six positive even integers: 2 + 4 + 6 + 8 + 10 + 11 = 41

11 is not even (it seems to be thinking somewhat of 42?)

Edit: Actually the more I think about it, it's a pretty interesting error. ChatGPT 4 produces much better answers than I would for the majority of these questions, but I don't think I would make this error. If you asked it, I'm sure it would correctly explain that the sum of even integers cannot be odd, or that 11 is not even, etc, but I wonder if (for example) a la... (read more)

2VipulNaik
Thanks, and sorry I missed that error. I've updated the post by bolding the error, and also HT'ed your contribution.
1Odd anon
Wild guess: It realised its mistake partway through, and followed through it anyway as sensibly as could be done, balancing between giving a wrong calculation ("+ 12 = 41"), ignoring the central focus of the question (" + 12 = 42"), and breaking from the "list of even integers" that it was supposed to be going through. I suspect it would not make this error when using chain-of-thought.
3Kenoubi
The way that LLM tokenization represents numbers is all kinds of stupid. It's honestly kind of amazing to me they don't make even more arithmetic errors. Of course, an LLM can use a calculator just fine, and this is an extremely obvious way to enhance its general intelligence. I believe "give the LLM a calculator" is in fact being used, in some cases, but either the LLM or some shell around it has to decide when to use the calculator and how to use the calculator's result. That apparently didn't happen or didn't work properly in this case.

In 10 to 20 years, when tensor processors are cheap and power-efficient, it will be common for networks of self-replenishing autonomous drones to surveil and police vast areas of land.

Is there a betting market for this?

2mako yass
The thought of making one crossed my mind, but 10 year bets about things that seem obvious to me are unappealing. To bet in them is to stake my reputation not so much on the event, but on me being able to convince the market, soon enough before the resolution date for me to exit, of something that they're currently — for reasons I don't understand — denying (or if they are not in denial about it, I wont make much by betting). It's not a bet on reality, it's a bet on the consensus reality. I'm not used to that yet.

A fascinating eukaryotic exception is the white-throated sparrow, which functionally has four genders in an equilibrium where the tan-striped males mostly mate with white-striped females and vice versa. (I first read about it in Joan Strassmann’s book Slow Birding; the Wikipedia page for White-Throated Sparrow also has some introductory info. It seems to involve a chromosomal inversion.)