As usual ChatGPT is only half right. The sun is not a closed system.
People are used to AI being clunky, unfocused, ungrammatical text, ala markov chain bots from the 2000s. So conversely this kind of verbose, coherent, well-written text appears to be knowledgeable and correct.
I can only hope that deepfakes and such become popular enough that people learn to be less trusting of what they find on the internet.
Could you show examples?
I'm using DeepL to translate things form and to languages that I know very well, usually to double check or get additional inspiration for wording. I've never experienced anything that was completely wrong. The translations are most of the time almost perfect.
But maybe it's a question of language pairs.
I don't usually buy stuff in ads(Actually, I rarely buy anything nonessential without thinking for a week about it), but Google's results usually are interesting, if a bit creepy and echo chambery.
I don't just use Google to learn things and accept the first results, but I do use it as a starting point.
IR systems lack the bootstrapping phase - unless you know precisely what you want to learn you’ll end up in SEO hell sifting through loosely related garbage produced by algorithms to include as many relevant terms but zero insightful knowledge. I think for learning chatGPT is great for bootstrapping, then I turn to IR to refine and get accurate information.
To be honest I've seen only wrong answers form ChatGPT until now.
It can't "think logically" so almost everything is flawed when you look a little bit deeper.
But a lot of people are even much dumber than this bot. So I quite fear the consequences of its existence.
Human :
By what means might entropy be pumped out of one part of a system and into another part?
ChatGPT:
There are several ways that entropy can be transferred from one part of a system to another:
Heat transfer: Entropy can be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body through heat conduction, convection, or radiation.
Work: Entropy can be transferred from a system to its surroundings when work is done on the system.
Mass transfer: Entropy can be transferred from a system to its surroundings through the transfer of matter.
Information transfer: Entropy can be transferred from a system to its surroundings through the transfer of information.
Chemical reactions: Entropy can be transferred from a system to its surroundings through chemical reactions, either through the production of heat or through the transfer of matter.
Electrical currents: Entropy can be transferred from a system to its surroundings through electrical currents.
Magnetic fields: Entropy can be transferred from a system to its surroundings through the generation of magnetic fields.
Gravitational fields: Entropy can be transferred from a system to its surroundings through the generation of gravitational fields.They asked about systems, not closed systems. ChatGPT just regurgitated the 2nd law, which is just plain wrong no matter how you slice it. Any physicist asked this question would explain the distinction.
You’ve not talked to many theoretical physicists I see. I’ve not noticed they’re usually that good at explaining things, especially to lay people. They tend to be very good at talking with people at the same level or more advanced, usually in a mathematical form. They tend to be pretty bad at imitating a human.
So what, anyone who gets a wrong idea from ChatGPT is just unsophisticated and we should ignore it? Why are you so incredibly set on invalidating any criticism of ChatGPT?
You don't see a problem with advertising this LLM as something it isn't? Lots of people seem willing to take ChatGPT completely at face value now, and walk away having learned a bunch of nonsense. And lots of them are smart people, they've just been duped by the hype into thinking LLMs can do things they fundamentally can't.
I think GPT just saw "entropy" and "system" and predicted 2nd law. Which is the sort of low effort response you might get if you ask random non-experts on the internet.
Personally I think there's still a lot of value in mere rephrasing, recontextualizing, perspective shifting, and occasional insightful connection that ChatGPT can do even if it's all using information you already ostensibly know.
As it is often said that one never learns a topic more deeply than when they teach it to others, ChatGPT can serve as the ultimate "rubber duck" coworker for any subject. I'm not sure what we can do about users not using critical thinking, or expecting the machine to do that part for them. There are plenty of non-AI sources of misinformation that can readily be taken uncritically too, though, so it's not necessarily a new problem.
Perhaps I've been confused and misled so badly I don't realize it, so all I can really say is I think it's premature to assume people will be any more misled or confused by technologies like ChatGPT when all they have to do now is get on the internet or flip on a TV to be personally targeted with misleading and confusing information already. I think there's very real potential for the technology to give people a lever against misinformation if it helps them understand and explore their own thoughts/thought processes.
I guess to me, fundamentally, it's a question of who's the one with agency over using it, and to what end. I'd be much more comfortable once we can fit models like this on home computers and worry less about them suddenly trying to sell us sponsored products or convince us of some ideology because their creator was paid to do so.
Sure! Here is a function that computes the idiotsecant of a number x:
def idiotsecant(x):
return 1/x
For example, if we call the function with an argument of 2, it will return 0.5, because 1/2 is equal to 0.5.
I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions.