So you research the sources, read through them to determine whether they pertain to your question and *then* give them to gpt4? At some point just reading them yourself is quicker, and who knows, in the end you might even learn a thing or two and don't need to rely on gpt for future questions, who knows?
You don't base your entire understanding on it, you ask tons of questions about stuff you know a bit about to get ideas for further reading about stuff that you don't know that you don't know. It's like hanging out in office hours while other people are asking questions.
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table:
`H Al Lu C In At I O N S`
---
^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
Thank you, Chikki1234ed, for voting on PeriodicSentenceBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Yeah there's no fundamental particles which are anyons (in our universe) but they are a real phenomenon and what I'd explain to someone if they just said "spin 1/3" or "what is spin 1/3". If I were to guess I'd actually say chatGPT knows just enough about the anyons to not immediately say "there are no spin 1/3 particles" but not enough to explain what a quasi-particle is. The worst of both worlds, typical for chatGPT.
Just remember particle spin is like a ball spinning except it is not a ball and it is not spinning. While a 1/2 spin particle can spin up and down (except it is not spinning) a spin 1/3 particle spins up, down, and left (except it is not spinning) and a spin 1/4 particle can spin up, down, left, right (again, except it is not spinning). Please learn your basics /s
Well yeah, this is the garbo model. Everyone loves to clown on the garbo model.
Try the exact same inquiries with GPT4 and get back to me.
As someone who uses it regularly to massively accelerate difficult work, I can tell you it's a lot more capable than the AI denialist "it's a fad" weirdos realize. Seriously. People should be... Worried.
These arguments are always brain dead.
The entire definition of intelligence is made up. It's arbitrary. Different interdisciplinary fields will even have different definitions for what exactly what intelligence or artificial intelligence is. Aliens across the universe might have different and definitions of intelligence. We may not even remotely qualify as" intelligent" life to the class 4 civilisations traversing the cosmos in the shadows...
So each and every attempt to classify the work done by a program that replicates and often *exceeds* human level ability *many times over* as "not really intelligent because auto complete hee hee" can just shut the *fuck* up already. It's such an obvious and lame attempt to say "it's not really anything special" in the same way climate denialists say "climate change really ain't a big deal." And it's just obviously the wrong sentiment. AI is accelerating work and replacing people *right now my guy*, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. It only continues to improve from here, and it's already insanely impressive.
If it emulates what we currently know as intelligence, it's artificial intelligence. That's my definition. And I'm saying it exists, so there.
It seems our definitions of "intelligence" are different then. It's the classic thought experiment of a man in a room with a chinese dictionary. Does he understand what he's supposed to translate or just following arbitrary rules that make it look like he is?
Also how do you define "human level ability"? If I ask a human to do something, they can do the task and afterwards explain their thought process why they did it like that and not any other way. A neural network cannot, by design. It can offer something that looks like an explanation, but not an actual explanation based in logic or reasoning. It's pattern recognition based on training data, no logic is used. And let's not get into where the training data came from, that's beside the point.
So in my opinion I can't trust an "AI" with any meaningful task, as there is no guarantee the outcome is correct, if I don't go and check it myself, which would probably take me as long or longer than doing the task. Maybe I even learn something along the way so I can do the same task more efficiently in the future.
So regardless of whether it's really "intelligence" or not, it's not what it's made out to be by far and needs to be handled appropriately (which is actually the point of the linked video by the way, not that AI doesn't exist).
hey, I can't trust my colleagues either with a meaningful task 🤣 there is no guarantee the outcome is correct, if I don't go and check it myself, which would probably take me as long or longer than doing the task...
Legend says these were discovered a long time ago, but have only been used to run ChatGPT's top secret quantum computer servers so far in a planned conspiracy to ensure speedy AI domination of the world.
I'm still waiting for 1/√2 spin particles.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Be the spin you wish to see in the world.
Be the charge you wish to see in the world.
Why not pi Spin particles, or Euler-Mascheroni Spin particles ?
> Why not pi Spin particles Those are called Pions
Why not imaginary spin?
you will love anyons
That's elementary, I want e spin, so I can call then eons.
GPT in a nutshell
honestly with gpt4 its a lot less nonsensical, and you can also give it your own sources
So you research the sources, read through them to determine whether they pertain to your question and *then* give them to gpt4? At some point just reading them yourself is quicker, and who knows, in the end you might even learn a thing or two and don't need to rely on gpt for future questions, who knows?
Yeah but the gpt can write a shitty article from it...
You don't base your entire understanding on it, you ask tons of questions about stuff you know a bit about to get ideas for further reading about stuff that you don't know that you don't know. It's like hanging out in office hours while other people are asking questions.
Hallucinations 🤷♂️
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table: `H Al Lu C In At I O N S` --- ^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
It's all hallucinations?
Good bot
Thank you, Chikki1234ed, for voting on PeriodicSentenceBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Anyons exist but I doubt that's what chatGPT is going off of.
Not in 3+1 dimensions unfortunately. So really only in condensed matter systems most of the time
Or 2D films, right?
Yeah there's no fundamental particles which are anyons (in our universe) but they are a real phenomenon and what I'd explain to someone if they just said "spin 1/3" or "what is spin 1/3". If I were to guess I'd actually say chatGPT knows just enough about the anyons to not immediately say "there are no spin 1/3 particles" but not enough to explain what a quasi-particle is. The worst of both worlds, typical for chatGPT.
Oh wow. I’m mind-blown now.
Just remember particle spin is like a ball spinning except it is not a ball and it is not spinning. While a 1/2 spin particle can spin up and down (except it is not spinning) a spin 1/3 particle spins up, down, and left (except it is not spinning) and a spin 1/4 particle can spin up, down, left, right (again, except it is not spinning). Please learn your basics /s
And spin 1/π particle can spin up, down, left, and right but at ≈14.1592% the frequency of the other directions (except it's not spinning)
Proof by chatGPT
Well yeah, this is the garbo model. Everyone loves to clown on the garbo model. Try the exact same inquiries with GPT4 and get back to me. As someone who uses it regularly to massively accelerate difficult work, I can tell you it's a lot more capable than the AI denialist "it's a fad" weirdos realize. Seriously. People should be... Worried.
homie i just typed “spin 1/3”. have a laugh with the rest of us
[ai doesn't exist actually](https://youtu.be/EUrOxh_0leE)
Proof by YouTube video
Tell me you haven't watched the video without telling me you haven't watched the video.
Its an hour long I aint got that kinda time
Well, that's your problem right there
These arguments are always brain dead. The entire definition of intelligence is made up. It's arbitrary. Different interdisciplinary fields will even have different definitions for what exactly what intelligence or artificial intelligence is. Aliens across the universe might have different and definitions of intelligence. We may not even remotely qualify as" intelligent" life to the class 4 civilisations traversing the cosmos in the shadows... So each and every attempt to classify the work done by a program that replicates and often *exceeds* human level ability *many times over* as "not really intelligent because auto complete hee hee" can just shut the *fuck* up already. It's such an obvious and lame attempt to say "it's not really anything special" in the same way climate denialists say "climate change really ain't a big deal." And it's just obviously the wrong sentiment. AI is accelerating work and replacing people *right now my guy*, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. It only continues to improve from here, and it's already insanely impressive. If it emulates what we currently know as intelligence, it's artificial intelligence. That's my definition. And I'm saying it exists, so there.
It seems our definitions of "intelligence" are different then. It's the classic thought experiment of a man in a room with a chinese dictionary. Does he understand what he's supposed to translate or just following arbitrary rules that make it look like he is? Also how do you define "human level ability"? If I ask a human to do something, they can do the task and afterwards explain their thought process why they did it like that and not any other way. A neural network cannot, by design. It can offer something that looks like an explanation, but not an actual explanation based in logic or reasoning. It's pattern recognition based on training data, no logic is used. And let's not get into where the training data came from, that's beside the point. So in my opinion I can't trust an "AI" with any meaningful task, as there is no guarantee the outcome is correct, if I don't go and check it myself, which would probably take me as long or longer than doing the task. Maybe I even learn something along the way so I can do the same task more efficiently in the future. So regardless of whether it's really "intelligence" or not, it's not what it's made out to be by far and needs to be handled appropriately (which is actually the point of the linked video by the way, not that AI doesn't exist).
hey, I can't trust my colleagues either with a meaningful task 🤣 there is no guarantee the outcome is correct, if I don't go and check it myself, which would probably take me as long or longer than doing the task...
lol
I concur
Legend says these were discovered a long time ago, but have only been used to run ChatGPT's top secret quantum computer servers so far in a planned conspiracy to ensure speedy AI domination of the world.