Final Unicourse'tan Çalış, Yüksek Notu Garantile!
Vizesine Unicourse'tan Çalış, Yüksek Notu Garantile!
Fikrini Gerçeğe Dönüştür
Projeni dünyaya göstermek için sahne hazır. Red Bull Basement başvuruları açık.
Başvurunu YapAI fails badly in discussing books I am reading
-
I was recently reading Ben Aaronvitch’s ‘Rivers of London’ and I was struggling to follow the plot. So I engaged in discussions with both ChatGPT and Gemini and both really struggled to not make lots of mistakes. Both AIs would regularly give inaccurate info about major plot points, and when I questioned them about those issues, they would apologize profusely and then try to continue on. I basically had to coach them through to get them to remember important points of the plot! They also struggled to not reveal spoilers past a certain chapter. It was interesting to see the AIs repeatedly fail.
-
I was recently reading Ben Aaronvitch’s ‘Rivers of London’ and I was struggling to follow the plot. So I engaged in discussions with both ChatGPT and Gemini and both really struggled to not make lots of mistakes. Both AIs would regularly give inaccurate info about major plot points, and when I questioned them about those issues, they would apologize profusely and then try to continue on. I basically had to coach them through to get them to remember important points of the plot! They also struggled to not reveal spoilers past a certain chapter. It was interesting to see the AIs repeatedly fail.
Why are you wasting you time with AI anything? It's all shit.
-
I was recently reading Ben Aaronvitch’s ‘Rivers of London’ and I was struggling to follow the plot. So I engaged in discussions with both ChatGPT and Gemini and both really struggled to not make lots of mistakes. Both AIs would regularly give inaccurate info about major plot points, and when I questioned them about those issues, they would apologize profusely and then try to continue on. I basically had to coach them through to get them to remember important points of the plot! They also struggled to not reveal spoilers past a certain chapter. It was interesting to see the AIs repeatedly fail.
Yeah; just goes to show they really don't "think" or "understand" like we do.
-
I was recently reading Ben Aaronvitch’s ‘Rivers of London’ and I was struggling to follow the plot. So I engaged in discussions with both ChatGPT and Gemini and both really struggled to not make lots of mistakes. Both AIs would regularly give inaccurate info about major plot points, and when I questioned them about those issues, they would apologize profusely and then try to continue on. I basically had to coach them through to get them to remember important points of the plot! They also struggled to not reveal spoilers past a certain chapter. It was interesting to see the AIs repeatedly fail.
i am guessing you arr using the free versions but i can imagine this type of thing is more open to hallucinations. so taking, replayjng text coupled with free model. wont be the best.
are you able to attach the book to your chat inn the free version? do you have a digital copy?
-
I was recently reading Ben Aaronvitch’s ‘Rivers of London’ and I was struggling to follow the plot. So I engaged in discussions with both ChatGPT and Gemini and both really struggled to not make lots of mistakes. Both AIs would regularly give inaccurate info about major plot points, and when I questioned them about those issues, they would apologize profusely and then try to continue on. I basically had to coach them through to get them to remember important points of the plot! They also struggled to not reveal spoilers past a certain chapter. It was interesting to see the AIs repeatedly fail.
Did the AI “fail,” or did you use AI in a suboptimal way?
If you had started the conversation by feeding in the actual text of the book, you would have very different results, because you would be grounding on context rather than asking the model to “figure it out somehow” based on training data.
Not sure what you were expecting, using AI is mostly about context management, and if you don’t set up the context correctly you’re asking for results similar to this.
-
I was recently reading Ben Aaronvitch’s ‘Rivers of London’ and I was struggling to follow the plot. So I engaged in discussions with both ChatGPT and Gemini and both really struggled to not make lots of mistakes. Both AIs would regularly give inaccurate info about major plot points, and when I questioned them about those issues, they would apologize profusely and then try to continue on. I basically had to coach them through to get them to remember important points of the plot! They also struggled to not reveal spoilers past a certain chapter. It was interesting to see the AIs repeatedly fail.
That's literally how the work: They can't reason or think. They don't know or understand anything. They just output strings of words that are statistically likely to be the response to your question based on strings of words that they've been trained on.
-
That's literally how the work: They can't reason or think. They don't know or understand anything. They just output strings of words that are statistically likely to be the response to your question based on strings of words that they've been trained on.
Probability machine prone to hallucinations is how I call them.
-
That's literally how the work: They can't reason or think. They don't know or understand anything. They just output strings of words that are statistically likely to be the response to your question based on strings of words that they've been trained on.
I've heard it referred to as spicy autocomplete and also next word extruder
-
Why are you wasting you time with AI anything? It's all shit.
Point taken
-
That's literally how the work: They can't reason or think. They don't know or understand anything. They just output strings of words that are statistically likely to be the response to your question based on strings of words that they've been trained on.
I did have a much better discussion of 'Moby Dick' a while ago, but I imagine there is lots of info that AI has scraped from scholarly articles and the like about classics.
-
i am guessing you arr using the free versions but i can imagine this type of thing is more open to hallucinations. so taking, replayjng text coupled with free model. wont be the best.
are you able to attach the book to your chat inn the free version? do you have a digital copy?
What is the "boll"
-
Yeah; just goes to show they really don't "think" or "understand" like we do.
It felt like a good reminder to me
-
What is the "boll"
They meant "book" I think.
-
What is the "boll"
i meant book. i typed that on my phone without reading glasses
-
I was recently reading Ben Aaronvitch’s ‘Rivers of London’ and I was struggling to follow the plot. So I engaged in discussions with both ChatGPT and Gemini and both really struggled to not make lots of mistakes. Both AIs would regularly give inaccurate info about major plot points, and when I questioned them about those issues, they would apologize profusely and then try to continue on. I basically had to coach them through to get them to remember important points of the plot! They also struggled to not reveal spoilers past a certain chapter. It was interesting to see the AIs repeatedly fail.
LLMs don't really know the subject matter they talk about in the same way a person does. Whatever you feed as input biases the responses towards and away from certain sequences of words. If you put in something about Star Wars, it'll weigh its output in favor of saying things like "Luke Skywalker" and "Darth Vader" and away from things like "The best way to use a crockpot is...". When you're trying to get it to recall facts about things that aren't extremely famous, it will jumble some parts or just make things up that sound plausible.
As an example, I liked to prompt them with "Tell me about 'A Valiant Effort (1989)'" as a test -- it doesn't actually exist, but they'd often tell me it was a painting or a movie or an obscure book with hallucinated details until very recently; newer models seem more likely to say "I don't know what that is" or similar, but that's not guaranteed.
To get better results, try feeding it a passage you'd like it to work on directly in the input instead of assuming it just knows the story already, and you'll get output weighted by the actual text (and whatever else you put in context).
-
I was recently reading Ben Aaronvitch’s ‘Rivers of London’ and I was struggling to follow the plot. So I engaged in discussions with both ChatGPT and Gemini and both really struggled to not make lots of mistakes. Both AIs would regularly give inaccurate info about major plot points, and when I questioned them about those issues, they would apologize profusely and then try to continue on. I basically had to coach them through to get them to remember important points of the plot! They also struggled to not reveal spoilers past a certain chapter. It was interesting to see the AIs repeatedly fail.
You run out of people to talk to or what?
-
You run out of people to talk to or what?
Ha ha. I'm experimenting with the technology.
-
LLMs don't really know the subject matter they talk about in the same way a person does. Whatever you feed as input biases the responses towards and away from certain sequences of words. If you put in something about Star Wars, it'll weigh its output in favor of saying things like "Luke Skywalker" and "Darth Vader" and away from things like "The best way to use a crockpot is...". When you're trying to get it to recall facts about things that aren't extremely famous, it will jumble some parts or just make things up that sound plausible.
As an example, I liked to prompt them with "Tell me about 'A Valiant Effort (1989)'" as a test -- it doesn't actually exist, but they'd often tell me it was a painting or a movie or an obscure book with hallucinated details until very recently; newer models seem more likely to say "I don't know what that is" or similar, but that's not guaranteed.
To get better results, try feeding it a passage you'd like it to work on directly in the input instead of assuming it just knows the story already, and you'll get output weighted by the actual text (and whatever else you put in context).
That's a funny way to test it with a fake movie!
-
Did the AI “fail,” or did you use AI in a suboptimal way?
If you had started the conversation by feeding in the actual text of the book, you would have very different results, because you would be grounding on context rather than asking the model to “figure it out somehow” based on training data.
Not sure what you were expecting, using AI is mostly about context management, and if you don’t set up the context correctly you’re asking for results similar to this.
It appeared it had access to the entire book - it linked me to a website that somehow had the text. I was able to coax better responses out of it when I corrected its mistakes about plot etc.
-
i meant book. i typed that on my phone without reading glasses
I didn't upload the book in this case. I could tell from the links that ChatGPT was using as references that it did have access to the full text through a website that had the text of the book, perhaps not legally.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Kayıt Ol Giriş
