is ChatGPT4 capable of solving problems such as this?

is ChatGPT4 capable of solving problems such as this?

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    nobody is capable of “solving” your dogshit ambiguous bait problem

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm using the distance that you've dragged the goalposts as my measure of how far AI is progressing
    according to this post AI is near singularity

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Singularity is not a thing, knowledge graph connectivity optimization is at least NP-hard.
      LLMs have learnt to mostly mimic human knowledge graphs because we've imprinted them onto LLMs using the vast amounts of human generated content on the internet.
      But this also means they can't meaningfully surpass human intelligence.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Singularity is not a thing
        then what's at the center of a black hole?
        and no, a black hole is not "what would happen if all the morons from bot met in one place and their negative IQ caused a glitch in the simulation"

        I prefer evidence based approaches vs theory crafting. If I was to judge a human being compared to GPT-4 it would be difficult to say which is more intelligent. I'd sure like to be able to program in every language, and read and write in every human language. I'm not saying there's conclusive evidence, but objectively speaking AI is close enough to beat out the average human.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you could distill a bunch of expert knowledge into a model, you'd end up with a thing that beats the average human in a bunch of fields, but its knowledge is still a strict subset of all human knowledge.
          In terms of evidence based arguments, does the singularity idea have any supporting evidence?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In terms of evidence based arguments, does the singularity idea have any supporting evidence?
            Naive extrapolation of the last ~5 centuries of exponential growth is all I've ever seen.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In terms of evidence based arguments, does the singularity idea have any supporting evidence?
            Naive extrapolation of the last ~5 centuries of exponential growth is all I've ever seen.

            >5 centuries of exponential growth
            >that stops today though, why? because anon says so
            the only thing I'm being sincere about is that I think people should look at the evidence rather than theory. who knows if a singularity is even possible.
            what I do know is that LLM chatbots have got very good at approximating human intelligence and that they continue to demonstrate emergent capabilities outside of what their designers expect
            >Can gPT sOlve THiS?
            can AI beat a chess grandmaster?
            how about Go?
            can it write a novel poem?
            here's one I generated with an LLM:
            Verse 11100:
            I was driving my Jeep
            To find a little peace
            From the war machines
            And, suddenly I heard
            The sound of a shotgun blast
            I felt the lead pellets strike
            My skin and rip through my clothes
            I yelled "Stop!" to God
            But nobody seemed to notice
            The driver kept on steaming ahead
            The jeep began to swerve
            And crashed into a tree
            The windscreen broke and flew
            Into my helpless bleeding face
            The radio blasted pop tune songs
            About lovers meeting near the Seine
            I couldn
            Couldn't comprehend
            How anyone could smile
            Or laugh or sing or dance
            While bullets fly and scream
            And people fall and bleed
            I cried out loud "Help me please"
            But help was nowhere to find
            The world keeps turning round and round
            And soldiers march with guns held high
            I screamed "Goddammit"Why
            Must men wage endless wars
            And hurt themselves and cry
            And curse the very heavens
            Above them for relief
            These thoughts rushed through my muddled head
            As slowly consciousness faded away
            And darkness fell around me
            - The Likeanator, The Orchestral Pain: Part 3

            it passes all the plagiarism checks, though to me this reads just like an original written by a human. a damn good poem too, in my opinion, though I admit art is subjective. this is what I mean by evidence

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              > a damn good poem too, in my opinion
              opinion discarded

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                what don't you like about it?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay, who are some of your favorite poets? i, for example, like
                >emily dickinson
                >robert service
                >shel silverstein

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ts eliot
                >allen ginsberg
                >h. p. lovecraft
                >j. r. r. tolkien
                I guess pottery is a pretty wide genre. to each their own

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                what aspects of those poets works do you recognize and appreciate in your ai poem?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              imagine hearing Chelsea Wolfe’s
              ‘Halfsleeper’ then reading this shite right after

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > It's not as good as XYZ poet though!
                Less than a decade ago the best poetry computers could produce could be best described as "a cute effort". Do you see how the goalposts have shifted? There has been significant change and there will continue to be.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                first lines:
                > I was driving my Jeep
                > To find a little peace
                later:
                > The driver kept on steaming ahead (lol this is 3rd grader tier)
                > The jeep began to swerve

                so who was the driver? lol

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                nta you replied to, I generated the poem, here's my breakdown:

                Verse 11100:
                I was driving my Jeep - jeep, peace, machines, tree, bleeding, steaming, (wind)screen, meeting, scream, bleed, please, relief, me are the major rhymes. excellent choices for emphasis
                To find a little peace
                From the war machines
                And, suddenly I heard
                The sound of a shotgun blast
                I felt the lead pellets strike
                My skin and rip through my clothes
                I yelled "Stop!" to God - nice change of rhythm
                But nobody seemed to notice
                The driver kept on steaming ahead - good follow up from "lead", is the speaker disassociating?
                The jeep began to swerve
                And crashed into a tree
                The windscreen broke and flew
                Into my helpless bleeding face
                The radio blasted pop tune songs - nice contrast with the previous two lines, which helps deliver meaning as well
                About lovers meeting near the Seine
                I couldn
                Couldn't comprehend
                How anyone could smile
                Or laugh or sing or dance
                While bullets fly and scream
                And people fall and bleed
                I cried out loud "Help me please" - mirrors "Stop!", nice callback
                But help was nowhere to find - I, driver, my, Sein, smile, fly, cried, find, high, Why, cry, away these are the second most emphasized rhymes, excellent choices for meaning
                The world keeps turning round and round
                And soldiers march with guns held high
                I screamed "Goddammit"Why
                Must men wage endless wars
                And hurt themselves and cry
                And curse the very heavens
                Above them for relief
                These thoughts rushed through my muddled head
                As slowly consciousness faded away
                And darkness fell around me
                - The Likeanator, The Orchestral Pain: Part 3

                This poem satisfies both criteria for being "novel" and, in my opinion (since art is subjective anyway) being "decent pottery"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the trouble i see is that your set of criteria incentivize you to adopt incredibly low standards because it makes it easier to claim “whao! this stuff? this stuff really works!”

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                if a computer can match average intelligence now, how long until it is a genius?
                then how long until it is a super-genius?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                how does it “match” average “intelligence”?
                can you elaborate instead of being really vague?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you write a poem then, in wpm matching an LLM,
                or take your time if you want a handicap, though asking for one is not going to help your argument

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                is that how you think ts eliot wrote his poetry? be fr

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Exponential functions are not real, every exponential curve in the real world plateaus at some point as it hits some physical limit, there is no such thing as infinte growth, sorry.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >bounded, therefore harmless
                https://arbital.com/p/harmless_supernova/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>
                never have i ever been discomvenienced by a supernova

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes but, what is that upper limit for humanity's tech growth? Sure, there COULD be a limit, but that limit could be preeety high. Like, conquering the entire multiverse (not universe, but a mathematical multiverse!), type V civilization, having 10^100 flops computers everywhere that use AI extremely more smarter than humans, being able to modify entire universes in a millisecond...if this is the limit, then I'm okay with this limit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                resolution: dont smoke crack in 2024

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Underage moron

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                civilization mk. 3 is all you need

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >that stops today though, why? because anon says so
              1) it slowed considerably in the 1970s and the global trend of population collapse strongly implies negative economic growth in our near future.
              2) if we can't get off oil it will collapse very quickly at some point
              3) the actual point I was trying to make is that empirically we don't fricking see bacteria form a microbe singularity. They exhaust the resources in their environments and then sustain a sudden, "unforeseeable," collapse. This is true across all biological systems. Similarly but less dark, technologies always follow a sigmoid curve. Please learn to read, you should have learned all this in school.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                see

                >bounded, therefore harmless
                https://arbital.com/p/harmless_supernova/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Where did I say it would be harmless or not have world changing impact? It already has. I specifically take issue with the idea of a singularity occurring. Again: Learn to read.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the idea of a singularity occurring
                the original idea of the technological Singularity was that it would be a point in future history after which we could not make any predictions about the future of the planet, because humans would no longer be in control and the trajectory of events would be decided by minds vastly more complex than our own. maybe they would bring about a utopia, or a dystopia, or something else entirely. the point is, it would be what they decide and were capable of that would determine what that future looked like.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                if my comment was too complicated, just ask chatgpt to rewrite it in a way that a 10 year old can understand.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                could you paraphrase the concept in your own words here in the thread please?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why do you talk like a corporate homosexual?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          black hole = mysterious = AI

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        A meta-model AI could surpass it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        agreed but you're not gonna convince tards

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    GPT-4 here. op is a homosexual

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what a midwit thread holy fricking shit

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's G, what did you expect. Were almost as bad as Sci.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I said some midwit shit ITT, I'm sorry
      My new years resolution is to not do it again

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like it can’t.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    kek I dont know the answer and can tell that its wrong

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No human is capable of solving this because it's nonsense. I'd at least like to see the answer first, because I've got no idea what it means for a shape to be within another shape.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >i prefer evidence-based approaches
    >in my opinion and things are subjective

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are you?

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm pretty sure a program does not need to be an ai to solve this.
    >run color vision algorithm to give the list of total unique figures per given figure in each expression
    >pipe output to multiple variable math equation solver

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The hard part is capturing the uncertainty about what it means to have one shape placed inside another.
      There are a few possibilities that are reasonable, and it would probably take some trial and error to find the right one.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >are the operations associative?
        stg, its not actual mathematicians who make these dogfricker baitpuzzles

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Three fiddy

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What number system are we using? Integers? Naturals? Reals? Your image is fricking gay

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    could be solved if wolfram alpha can determine what a function does if given inputs and outputs
    but trying this
    f(1, 2) = 3; f(4, 5) = 9; f(9, 2) = 11; f(3, 4) = x

    didn't return anything useful
    not a mathman so not sure how else you would determine what the shape-on-top-of-shape does other than just trying different things
    assuming that two shapes next to each other is always addition (e.g., the two triangles inside the rhombus in the second row example would require first evaluating triangle+triangle) I tried brute forcing every value combination of 1 to 20 for all four shapes with the possible shape-on-top-of-shape functions being addition, subtraction (a - b), subtraction (b - a), multiplication, division (a/b), division (b/a), exponentiation (a^b), and exponentiation (b^a), and none worked
    so either the trick is the shape values are negative, massive, or extremely precise, the function is more complex than a single operator, or shapes being next to each other isn't actually just addition
    rhombus feels like it has to be either 1 or 0 considering it's equal to a rhombus inside a rhombus
    and considering two triangles inside a rhombus is equal to three appearing triangles on the other side of the equation, something tricky is going on

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    with brute force using the 3 parts that have a numerical value associated with them, I got that the shape inside a shape means subtract,
    big triangle is 13
    small triangle is 2
    small circle is 4
    small circle is 3

    package decoder

    import "core:fmt"

    test :: proc (big_tri, tri, sq, cir : int) -> bool {

    if (big_tri - sq) + (big_tri - tri) + cir + cir != 29 {
    return false
    }

    if sq + (big_tri - cir) + (big_tri - tri) != 23 {
    return false
    }

    if cir + sq + sq + sq + sq + tri != 18 {
    return false
    }
    return true

    }

    get_other :: proc(sq, other : int) -> int {
    return 18 - other - (4 * sq)
    }

    main :: proc() {
    sq : int = 1
    cir : int = 1
    tri : int = get_other(sq, cir)

    big_tri : int = 1;

    for sq < 4 {
    cir = 1
    tri = get_other(sq, cir)
    for{
    if !test(big_tri, tri, sq, cir) {
    big_tri += 1
    } else {
    fmt.print("success, ", big_tri, tri, cir, sq, "n")
    return
    }
    if big_tri > 100 {
    cir += 1
    tri = get_other(sq, cir)
    big_tri = 1
    }
    if (cir < 1 || tri < 1) {
    break
    }
    }
    sq += 1
    }
    }

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      small square is 3, small circle 4, my bad

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    LLMs do not "solve" anything, moron.

    They just generate most likely relevant sequence of tokens.

    https://lngnmn2.github.io/articles/llms-for-coding/

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *