> Because LLMs have terrible comprehension of the real world.
That doesn't seem to be the case.
> You: If you put a toddler next to a wig on the floor, which reaches higher?
> ChatGPT: ...
I answered it wrong too.
I had to read it, and your reaction to the implied obvious reasoning 3 times, to figure out the implied obvious reasoning, and understand your intent was the toddler was standing and the wig was laying in a heap.
I scored 99.9+% on the SAT and LSAT. I think that implies this isn't some reasoning deficit, lack of familiarity with logical reasoning on my end, or lack of rigor in reasoning.
I have no particular interest in this argument. I think that implies that I'm not deploying motivated reasoning, i.e. it discounts the possibility that I may have experienced it as confusion that required re-reading the entire comment 3 times, but perhaps I had subconcious priors.
Would a toddler even understand the question? (serious question, I'm not familiar with 3 year olds)
Does this shed any light on how we'd work an argument along the lines of our deaf and mute friend typing?
Edit: you edited in some more examples, I found it's aubergine answers quite clever! (Ex. notching). I can't parse out a convincing argument this is somehow less knowledge than a 3 year old -- it's giving better answers than me that are physical! I thought youd be sharing it asserting obviously nonphysical answers
That doesn't seem to be the case.
> You: If you put a toddler next to a wig on the floor, which reaches higher? > ChatGPT: ...
I answered it wrong too.
I had to read it, and your reaction to the implied obvious reasoning 3 times, to figure out the implied obvious reasoning, and understand your intent was the toddler was standing and the wig was laying in a heap.
I scored 99.9+% on the SAT and LSAT. I think that implies this isn't some reasoning deficit, lack of familiarity with logical reasoning on my end, or lack of rigor in reasoning.
I have no particular interest in this argument. I think that implies that I'm not deploying motivated reasoning, i.e. it discounts the possibility that I may have experienced it as confusion that required re-reading the entire comment 3 times, but perhaps I had subconcious priors.
Would a toddler even understand the question? (serious question, I'm not familiar with 3 year olds)
Does this shed any light on how we'd work an argument along the lines of our deaf and mute friend typing?
Edit: you edited in some more examples, I found it's aubergine answers quite clever! (Ex. notching). I can't parse out a convincing argument this is somehow less knowledge than a 3 year old -- it's giving better answers than me that are physical! I thought youd be sharing it asserting obviously nonphysical answers