Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gahblahblah t1_j8fc3fk wrote

Reply to comment by ArgentStonecutter in Bing Chat blew ChatGPT out of the water on my bespoke "theory of mind" puzzle by Fit-Meet1359

The point of my reply was to get the critiquer to admit that there was actually no form of prompt that would satisfy them - which it did.

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_j8fcm2z wrote

They are not the only people involved in this discussion.

1

gahblahblah t1_j8fj7hb wrote

When you state something that, in of itself, is obviously true and known by everyone already, it seems like a waste of text/time/energy for you to write, and for anyone to read.

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_j8fjh6a wrote

But that's not what happened.

1

gahblahblah t1_j8fv6xu wrote

You have not understood my reply. I was describing your reply as useless and not explaining anything in a helpful way.

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_j8fyg26 wrote

You came in with this ambiguous scenario and crowing about how it showed a text generator had a theory of mind, because just by chance the text generator generated the text you wanted, and you want us to go "oh, wow, a theory of mind". But all its doing is generating statistically interesting text.

And when someone pointed that out, you go into this passive aggressive "oh let's see you do better" to someone who doesn't believe it's possible. That's not a valid or even useful argument. It's a stupid debate club trick to score points.

And now you're pulling more stupid passive aggressive tricks when you're called on it.

1

gahblahblah t1_j8gcb5d wrote

Thank you for clarifying your beliefs and assumptions.

>And when someone pointed that out, you go into this passive aggressive "oh let's see you do better" to someone who doesn't believe it's possible. That's not a valid or even useful argument. It's a stupid debate club trick to score points.

Wrong, in many ways. The criticism they had was of the particulars of the test - so it would appear as if there was a form of the test that they could judge as satisfactory. It was only after I challenged them to produce such a form, that they explained, actually, no form would satisfy them. So, you have gotten it backwards - my challenge yielded the useful result of demonstrating that initial criticism was disingenuous, as in reality, all that they criticised could have been different, and they still wouldn't change their view.

I wasn't being passive aggressive in asking someone to validate their position with more information - rather, I was soliciting information for which to determine if their critique was valid.

Asking for information is not 'a trick to score points', rather, it is the process of determining what is real.

>You came in with this ambiguous scenario and crowing about how it showed a text generator had a theory of mind, because just by chance the text generator generated the text you wanted, and you want us to go "oh, wow, a theory of mind". But all its doing is generating statistically interesting text.

This is a fascinating take that you have. You label this scenario as ambiguous- is there a way to make it not ambiguous to you?

To clarify, if I were to ask the bot a very very hard, complex, nuanced subtle question, and it answered in a long form coherent on-point correct reply - would you judge this as still ambiguous and only a demonstration of 'statistically interesting text', or is there a point where your view changes?

1