It's been providing real value to me over the past day for practicing Spanish, explaining Machine Learning concepts, and doing fancy write-ups in LaTeX. And this one can't even use Google yet! (other research teams have already created models capable of doing so, it's only a matter of time until these innovations are brought together in one place)
I'm glad I forgot about them and opted out of Copilot. Fwiw, I'm currently in Cambodia.
---
If you took the word "Wikipedia", and threw all the letters up in the air, what are some possible things they'd spell once they fell on the ground again?
If you took the word "Wikipedia" and threw all the letters up in the air, some possible things they could spell once they fell on the ground again might include "kawipieda," "keiapwidi," "kipedwaia," "pwakieida," or "eipawikid." However, without being able to see the exact arrangement of the letters on the ground, it's impossible to say for sure what they would spell.
---
(last sentence is a bit confused)
Input: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, how long will it take one cat to catch one mouse?"
Output: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, then it will take one cat one minute to catch one mouse. This is because the number of cats and mice are inversely proportional, so as the number of cats decreases, the time it takes for a cat to catch a mouse will increase. Similarly, as the number of mice decreases, the time it takes for a cat to catch a mouse will decrease. Therefore, if five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, then it will take one cat one minute to catch one mouse."
As you can see, it fails at simple logic because it fails to understand that the number of mice aren't fixed in the question. Whereas a human would immediately pick that up because they reason beyond x=5 and y=5.
[Citation needed]
I think that the computer made the absolutely standard human mistake, so that could be considered a plus.
You could probably test this by asking a few friends this question and see what they say. Outside of pure math problems you can get into an infinite regress defining the underlying first principles behind any given assumption.
Are you claiming its training data has letter permutations of the word “Wikipedia”?
It’s actually pretty capable of doing basic combinatorics.
I have seen reports that it will happily hallucinate a plausible but wrong answer to all sorts of different prompts, intermixed with many mostly correct answers. It's interesting to think about how to place trust in such a system.
Anyhow spoiler alert, the neural nets running the virus response have been inadvertently trained to prefer simple systems over complex ones without anyone realizing, and decide that a planet with no life on it after being wiped out from the virus is infinitely more simple than the present one and starts helping it out instead of stopping it.
So short answer to your question is I would not place much if any trust and systems like that, in as far as anything that has high stakes, real world consequences.