ChatGPT

I'm finding this all hilarious, whether original or not.--Percy

I gave ChatGPT this problem:

The Vicar Problem:

---

A vicar was holding a service in a small country church. In the front row were three congregation members and the local bishop. After the congregation had left, the vicar said to the bishop, "Did you know that the product of the ages of the three congregation members in the front row was 2450, and the sum of their ages was twice your own age?" Then he asked "Can you tell me how old they are?" The bishop, who was a good mathematician, thought for a while and replied "No, I can't". The vicar then added "Well I was the oldest person in the church, now you can do it", to which the bishop agreed and gave the answer.
​
How old was the vicar?

---

It calculated that the vicar is 126 years old, obviously wrong. I asked it to find the error and it came up with the same wrong answer. I told it the answer and it came up with a different wrong answer. I asked it to try again and it got the right answer, but I think it fudged the math because it got the wrong ages for the congregants. I have to leave in 5 minutes and can't check where it went wrong right now.--Percy

Rocket salad. Very good. Seems ChatGPT can somewhat simulate a sense of humor. Rocket salad is a real actual physical thing btw.Just a moment... Nip it.Responses are not unique. Most don't even qualify as malaprops. I give an E for effort though.It is trying to satisfy but a malaprop in reality is not a planned or requested item. It is (usually) a spontaneous misunderstanding and confusion of syntax and/or pronunciation. ChatGPT doesn't know from syntax and pronunciation. It doesn't know from confusion. All it knows is what word its algorithms register as most probably should appear next. It will not confuse "ovation" with "ovulation" or "Sistine" with "sixteen".If the request to cite examples of malaprops is given, that's all it can do. If the request is to create original malaprops ... it is not capable of making these errors. It's algorithms select the next word based on word probability within context and is incapable of this kind of inadvertent spontaneous syntax error. Putting two unrelated words together is not a malaprop.Such must be directed or programmed to occur but why, other than a discussion like this, would anyone want this thing to be programmed to make inadvertent spontaneous syntax errors? It already makes enough math errors.

I just asked ChatGPT to generate some original spoonerisms. It did, but they were terrible. It's not a shining wit.--Percy

How does it do with grammatical errors that humans commonly commit? Like the one that you just committed: "It's" ("it is") instead of "Its" (possessive pronoun). Or confusing "there", "they're", "their", or "your" and "you're". Or writing "with you and I" instead of "with you and me".Like one of the ways to spot the non-native speaker of a language being that their use of the language is much better than that of a native speaker.On that last, my excuse is that I was highly alienated in jr. and sr. high school, so I learned English, my native language, mainly through reading. And learning German, which teaches much more English grammar in two years than 12 years of English classes ever could.Though I've been accused of run-on sentences, but that's because of German:
a sentence is supposed to contain a complete thought and German packs a lot more thoughts into a sentence that English does. I'd love to discuss German's "extended adjective" (das ausgedehntes Eigenschaftswort) some time; eg, "the originally-having-come-from-Berlin man".

We will have to ask Percy but I don't think there is a programmatic equivalent to THC that would allow my kind of error to appear in ChatGPT's work. Psychedelics of the AI kind are possible as evidenced by its poem for Tangle but grammatical errors of the AZPaul3 kind are beyond its structure to produce even under the influence whereas I succumb readily.

From my reading, even though it exists as thousands of computers, ChatGPT is strictly a language algorithm and does not have access to an ALU. I’m thinking it is so blind to anything but the result of the algorithm ChatGPT cannot recognize there is a math component to the issue. It doesn’t know from issue. It doesn’t know from math? Numbers are just weighted words in the algorithm?This is a glaring hole and you have to know OpenAI is working to resolve this. Must be super difficult in their present architecture or it would have been resolved. Max Tegmark cannot be happy since his math, which is the creator of all structure in the universe, is reduced to a verbose prose. And a broken one at that.

I asked ChatGPT to "compose a sentence about table manners that appears to be written by someone who is semi-literate." It replied:

ChatGPT:

---

"Uhm, like, you ain't s'posed to talk with yer mouth full of food, and, like, use them stick thingies for noodles 'cause forks are fer salad or somethin'."

---

This contains an inconsistency, first implying the person didn't know the word for "fork" when it use the term "them stick thingies" and then a few words later using the word "fork".--Percy

Percy, I think the stick things are chop sticks, the most common eating utensil in the world.

A follow-up on the math issues.

quote:

---

Moreover, math problems often require a deeper understanding of concepts and a step-by-step reasoning process to arrive at accurate solutions. While ChatGPT may excel at generating plausible responses, it may struggle to produce accurate mathematical results due to a lack of formal understanding and the absence of a mechanism to perform mathematical computations.

---

Just a moment...And what is this "Just a moment..." instead of the article title or url?

Yes, it seemed pretty obvious that "stick thingies" was referring to chopsticks. I'm not sure how Percy missed that.

I considered chopsticks, but when I rephrased in my mind I ended up with this:

quote:

---

You aren't supposed to use chopsticks with noodles because forks are for salads.

---

Which makes no sense. By sentence structure "stick thingies" and "forks" have to be synonyms unless you assume ChatGPT made the person not just semi-literate but also dumb and grammatically inconsistent.But I see that other people are interpreting the sentence differently. I'm the only one who assumed that "ain't supposed to" applied both to talking with your mouth full and to using stick thingies for noodles. But if it only applies to talking with your mouth full and not to the part about stick thingies then chopsticks make sense.--Percy

You did ask for something by a semi-literate person, so you shouldn't be expecting strict grammar and logic.

Percy is not used to speaking dumb hillbilly. He didn't recognise it. You and I, on the other hand ...

It's been a lot more than once that I've misparsed something.--Percy