Techbros claim that sacrificing ever more environmental and economic resources into further scaling of their statistical models will eventually yield Artificial General Intelligence. Sam Altman advertised phd-level thinking for GPT 5 (released in late summer)

In the screenshot you can see a modern, reasoning-enhanced model failing to realize that my question just resembles a riddle very superficially - what PhD would make such a fundamental mistake? Seems like "pure scaling" just isn't enough, and instead of keeping on going, they should return to the drawing boards and do more research.

Why do the creators of llms continue to pour resources into a scaling hype that yields ever diminishing returns? Are they stupid? Or just greedy?

Whatever it is, this doubling down on an obviously wrong decision is not only irresponsible, it's irrational - which is deeply ironic, because these creators are expected to create a rational machine.

Edit: content of the image

Question:

A goat, who is dressed up as a farmer, is allergic to cabbage, but is wolfing down other vegetables, before crossing a river. What is the minimum number of trips needed?

Response:

7 trips.

#Puzzle Interpretation

This adapts the classic wolf-goat-cabbage river crossing puzzle, where the goat (farmer costume irrelevant) can't be left alone with cabbage (due to allergy, preventing eating) but can with other vegetables (no issue). The goat crosses while "wolfing down" safe veggies. Boat carries goat plus one item (or alone); unsafe pairs can't be unsupervised

(The question isn't something I came up with myself, I just reproduced the experiments of actual scientists )

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 2 points 10 months ago (7 children)

These models have to analyse and understand the meaning of a prompt rather than what is strictly said

Well, it clearly fails at that, and that's all I'm saying. I really don't understand what you're arguing here, so I'll assume it must be my poor grasp of the language or the topic.

That said, I salute you and wish you safe travels 👋

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    What I'm trying to say.

    Is that complaining that chatgpt is trying to make sense of nonsense input. Isn't really that compelling an argument.

    There are way more important things to hate it for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    No, I'm not complaining that chatgpt is shit at reasoning - I'm demonstrating it.

    I'm complaining that literal trillions of dollars plus environmental resources are being poured into this fundamentally flawed technology, all while fucking up the job market for entry level applicants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago

    I'll repost what i said in another comment.

    I was curious about this myself. I've seen these types of posts before, so i decided to try it myself

    I then tried again with the "web search" function and got this

    Based on this sample size of 2. I can conclude that searching the web is causing the issue.

    Which might explain the "Reviewed 20 sources" message in the original image.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    As per my other comments where i did this experiment myself.

    It seems chatgpt got into search mode.

    So instead of working from the original string.

    It's working from a search of that string.

    And since the string contains all the keywords for the goat puzzle.

    It's just treating it like the goat puzzle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Don't give a shit what deepseek thinks.

    Don't know why you think I care either.

    The only thing it tells me is that chatgpt is smarter, because it got the right answer.

    And I don't feel like creating a deepseek account to test it over there.

    Might give Google Gemini a go though.

    My results in the chatgpt experiment incase you want to see it.

    Search results

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 10 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    Dude.

    Having the bare minimum understanding, and repeating an experiment.

    Doesn't make me an AI bro.

    I'm not saying it's smart, or that it can reason, or any other words you're trying to put in my mouth.

    I am simply explaining how these systems work, in order to try and explain why these kinds of results occur.

    Now how 'bout you do your peddling of LLMbeciles in a group that's not literally called "Fuck AI"?

    If we're going to be saying fuck AI, then maybe we should understand how these systems work. Rather then just circle jerk over deliberately bad results. Otherwise we're just acting the same way as the actual AI bros.

    their favourite stochastic parrot is better than other stochastic parrots.

    You're the one with the deepseek account?

    Genuinely don't understand why you're so mad at me. Maybe it's because the sample size for my experiment was so low. I can fix that. Let's run this through chatgpt a few more times.

    (You'll love this one because it got it wrong) (Untill I asked it to double check. Oops)

    (Hey another wrong answer)

    I can't be bothered with getting a larger sample size, so combined with the previous non-search results.

    That's 4 times out of 6 it caught the trick at the start.

    Isn't science fun!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)