zlacker

No, but I can use a calculator to find the correct answer. It's quite easy in software because I can copy-and-paste the digits so I don't make any mistakes.

I just asked ChatGPT to do the calculation both by using a calculator and by using the algorithm step-by-step. In both cases it got the answer wrong, with different results each time.

More concerning, though, is that the answer was visually close to correct (it transposed some digits). This makes it especially hard to rely on because it's essentially lying about the fact it's using an algorithm and actually just predicting the number as a token.

>>chongl+(OP)
You asked it to use a calculator plugin and it didn’t work? Or did you just say “use a calculator”? Which it doesn’t have access to so how would you expect that to work? With a minimal amount of experimentation I can get correct answers up to 7 digit numbers so far even with 3.5. You just have to give it a good example, the one I used was to add each column and then add the results one at a time to a running total. It does make mistakes and we had to build up to that by doing 3 digit then 4 digit the 5 etc but it was working pretty well and 3.5 isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

Anyways, criticizing its math abilities is a bit silly considering it’s a language model, not a math model. The fact I can teach it how to do math in plain English is still incredible to me.

>>throwu+HM
It’s not that incredible to me given the sheer amount of math that goes into its construction.

I digress. The critique I have for it is much more broad than just its math abilities. It makes loads of mistakes in every single nontrivial thing it does. It’s not reliable for anything. But the real problem is that it doesn’t signal its unreliability the way an unreliable human worker does.

Humans we can’t rely on are don’t show up to work, or come in drunk/stoned, steal stuff, or whatever other obvious bad behaviour. ChatGPT, on the other hand, mimics the model employee who is tireless and punctual. Who always gets work done early and more elaborately than expected. But unfortunately, it also fills the elaborate result with countless errors and outright fabrications, disguised as best as it can like real work.

If a human worker did this we’d call it a highly sophisticated fraud. It’s like the kind of thing Saul Goodman would do to try to destroy the reputation of his brother. It’s not the kind of thing we should celebrate at all.

>>chongl+RY
Honestly, you just sound salty now. Yes it makes mistakes that it isn’t aware of and it probably makes a few more than an intern given the same task would but as long as you’re aware of that it is still a useful tool because it is thousands of times faster and cheaper than a human and has a much broader knowledge. People often compare it to the early days of Wikipedia and I think that’s apt. Everyone is still going to use it even if we have to review the output for mistakes because reviewing is a lot easier and faster than producing the material in the first place.

>>throwu+CG1
I've already seen other posts and comments on HN where people have talked about putting it into production. What they've found is that the burden of having to proof-read and edit the output with extreme care completely wipes out any time you might save with it. And this requires skilled editors/writers anyway, so it's not like you could use it to replace advanced writers with a bunch of high school kids using AI.