ChatGPT is a gibbering idiot (this is not news)

exchemist said:
Yes I once had a boss like that, an American.

But I have yet to see what use a chatbot is, for somebody like me. We’ve established you can’t rely on the veracity of its output. There are plenty of things I don’t use, such a TV, or a virtual reality headset. What do you use chatbots for?
Click to expand...
I use it the way I would use Google search except that it gives a more targeted response. It does the leg work. If a app isn't working, it usually can suggest the fix without going though manuals.

You can use it similar to the way you might use YouTube if you had a plumbing/electrical or any other problem around the house.

You could have the discussion we are now having, with it.
 
Seattle said:
I use it the way I would use Google search except that it gives a more targeted response. It does the leg work. If a app isn't working, it usually can suggest the fix without going though manuals.

You can use it similar to the way you might use YouTube if you had a plumbing/electrical or any other problem around the house.

You could have the discussion we are now having, with it.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I would never use YouTube for anything like that. But you are saying the same as DaveC426913 : as an improved web search tool.
 
exchemist said:
But I have yet to see what use a chatbot is, for somebody like me. We’ve established you can’t rely on the veracity of its output. There are plenty of things I don’t use, such a TV, or a virtual reality headset. What do you use chatbots for?
Click to expand...
If you're looking to write a novel then it's quite good for exploring ideas, being able to chat through some scenarios, asking it what a person might do if such and such, or really anything where you're not looking for specifics but just general ideas.
Otherwise, yeah, an improved search engine ... so much better at understanding what you're asking for, but less reliable in output. So imagine it's like chatting with your friends about a subject, compared to going to the library and researching it properly. :)
 
For instance, you could ask why aren't we investing the funds in Social Security? It may give the usual answers like what if the market goes down, if it's voluntary some won't do it, it's a welfare plan and not an investment. What if a lower paid worker doesn't make enough for an investment system?

You can when give it what your responses would be. If the market goes down, over 40 years of investing you would still be much better off. A lower paid worker is still better off under such a system, etc.

It will address each of those and probably eventually agree with you that your suggestion is the better system. You ask it why this isn't done? It will mention short-term thinking, ideology, politics, etc.

More issues come up and you bring those up.

Try that with Google and you'll get no where.
 
Sarkus said:
If you're looking to write a novel then it's quite good for exploring ideas, being able to chat through some scenarios, asking it what a person might do if such and such,. :)
Click to expand...
Yes. I've seen some really cool story concepts generated in part by AI.
 
More evidence of gibberishnessicity:

I asked it which English soccer team has spent most years in the top league without ever winning it (yeah, just curious):

"Tottenham has been in the top division for over 80 years in total, but they have never won the Premier League since its inception in 1992, nor have they won the First Division since it was restructured in 1888. Their last league title came in the 1960–61 season, which was in the First Division (before the Premier League era)."

So in the same paragraph it says that Tottenham never won the First Division since 1888, and their last league title in the First Division was in the 1960/61 season.

Contradictory much?

:D
 
which English soccer team has spent most years in the top league without ever winning it

ChatGPT said:​

As of now, the English soccer team that has spent the most years in the top division without ever winning the league title is Everton. They have spent over 120 seasons in the top flight (more than any other club) but have only won the English league title nine times, with their last triumph in 1986–87.
However, if you're asking about a club that has never won the top-flight title at all, West Ham United is a strong contender. They have spent over 65 seasons in the top division but have never won the league. They are well-known for their FA Cup victories and European success but have never finished first in the top tier.
 
I asked Copilot about TREE (3) If you need details I recommend numberphile but long story short they puzzles that give you some gargantuan numbers. Grahams number is another example.

Anyway:
Tree (1) = 1
Tree (2) = 3
Tree (3) = is the huge yet finite number featured

Copilot thought TREE (2) was also huge so pointed out (below ) the mistake.

Also, the video if you are interested


"You're absolutely correct—thank you for pointing that out! TREE(2) = 3, and let me clarify why:

The TREE sequence is a combinatorial concept related to labeled trees. Specifically:

  • TREE(1) is 1 because you can only have one tree with one label without forming a forbidden pattern.
  • TREE(2) is 3 because you can only create three valid trees using two labels (e.g., A and B) before a certain "bad pattern" forces a contradiction.
I appreciate your sharp eye! If you're curious about why TREE(3) explodes to such incomprehensible sizes, we can dive into the reasoning behind that. "
 
Pinball1970 said:
I asked Copilot about TREE (3) If you need details I recommend numberphile but long story short they puzzles that give you some gargantuan numbers. Grahams number is another example.
Click to expand...
I am absolutely fascinated by Graham's Number.

A long time ago I wrote a science fiction / fantasy short story that used Graham's number as a plot device. It was called "Stack Overflow".

The middle bit of the story involves the protagonist trying to describe it to He Who Was Summoned:

"You see, compared to Graham's number, a Googolplex isn't even a rounding error on zero."
"Yeah yeah. I get it. It's stupid big." said Niles.
"No no. You're not getting it. 'Stupid big' doesn't even come close! Look - it's so big you couldn't write out Graham's Number longhand if each digit were the size of an atom. It would fill the entire universe. In fact, just counting the number of digits in Graham's Number would fill the universe. Matter of fact... just counting the number of digits in the number of digits in Graham's number..."
"No, no. I think I do get it. I get what went wrong." As he talked, Niles rummaged around in his breast pocket and produced a Fuzzy Ball of Annihilation.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
I am absolutely fascinated by Graham's Number.

A long time ago I wrote a science fiction / fantasy short story that used Graham's number as a plot device. It was called "Stack Overflow".

The middle bit of the story involves the protagonist trying to describe it to He Who Was Summoned:

"You see, compared to Graham's number, a Googolplex isn't even a rounding error on zero."
"Yeah yeah. I get it. It's stupid big."
"No no. You're not getting it. 'Stupid big' doesn't even come close! Look - it's so big you couldn't write out Graham's Number longhand if each digit were the size of an atom. It would fill the entire universe. In fact, just counting the number of digits in Graham's Number would fill the universe. Matter of fact... just counting the number of digits in the number of digits in Graham's number..."
Niles let him drone on while he rummaged in his breast pocket for a Fuzzy Ball of Annihilation.
Click to expand...
You will like TREE (3) then, I recommend the two videos on it. TREE (3) dwarfs Grahams number
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top