- Local time
- Today, 19:08
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 17,039
This looks very interesting! I'm dropping the link here so that I remember to review it next week when I'm not so busy! https://www.haihai.ai/gpt-gdrive/
AI - Bringing John Lennon back to life!
One would think that solving math problems would be an easy task for an AI since. Especially since computers are routinely used to solve math problems. So why has the ability of AI to correctly identify a prime number declined?How do GPT-4 and GPT-3.5’s math solving skills evolve over time? As a canonical study, we explore
the drifts in these LLMs’ ability to figure out whether a given integer if prime.
Superficially, it would appear that giving an AI "freedom" to consider how to solve a problem introduces logical ambiguities that can result in inappropriate responses.Why was there such a large difference? One possible explanation is the drifts of chain-of-thoughts’
effects. Figure 2 (b) gives an illustrative example. To determine whether 17077 is a prime number, the
GPT-4’s March version followed the chain-of-thought instruction very well. It first decomposed the task
into four steps, checking if 17077 is even, finding 17077’s square root, obtaining all prime numbers less
than it, checking if 17077 is divisible by any of these numbers. Then it executed each step, and finally
reached the correct answer that 17077 is indeed a prime number. However, the chain-of-thought did
not work for the June version: the service did not generate any intermediate steps and simply produced
“No”. Chain-of-thought’s effects had a different drift pattern for GPT-3.5. In March, GPT-3.5 inclined
to generate the answer “No” first and then performed the reasoning steps. Thus, even if the steps and
final conclusion (“17077 is a prime number”) were correct, its nominal answer was still wrong. On
the other hand, the June update seemed to fix this issue: it started by writing the reasoning steps
and finally generate the answer “Yes”, which was correct. This interesting phenomenon indicates
that the same prompting approach, even these widely adopted such as chain-of-thought, could lead to
substantially different performance due to LLM drifts.
“It’s sort of like when we're teaching human students,” Zuo says. “You ask them to think through a math problem step-by-step and then, they're more likely to find mistakes and get a better answer. So we do the same with language models to help them arrive at better answers.” (Yahoo! article)
This youtube video is interesting as well.
I have my own theory.It amazes me that they don't really know how chat GPT works!
Language was constructed by humans to convey information. Inherent in that language is human logic.
intelligence itself is based on the structure of language
No. Intelligence is the ability to solve a problem. But language of course helps, as Jon noted:Could it be that the only reason humans are intelligent is because we constructed language, and that formed intelligence?.
And following up on that. Humans have the ability to pass-on knowledge from one generation to the next and to share that information too. That allows for incremental "intelligence" as we are able to build upon past scientific accomplishments to innovate new scientific progress. Contrast this with many animals who could be intelligent and discover something over the course of their lifespan but are unable to pass that discovery to their offspring or to share it with others of their species. So it is quite possible that an animal could be just as intelligent as a human, but the only reason we are "advanced" is due to the ability to share knowledge versus animals having to "reinvent the wheel" each generation.Language was constructed by humans to convey information.