Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #611711 > unrolled thread

Re: ChatGPT

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: ChatGPT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-05-27 18:45 -0700
    Re: ChatGPT Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 21:05 -0500
      Re: ChatGPT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-05-27 19:40 -0700
        Re: ChatGPT Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 22:03 -0500
          Re: ChatGPT The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-05-27 22:22 -0700
            Re: ChatGPT Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 03:31 -0500
              Re: ChatGPT Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 02:09 -0700
              Re: ChatGPT Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 18:17 -0500
                Re: ChatGPT Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 01:13 -0500
                  Re: ChatGPT Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:01 -0500
                    Re: ChatGPT Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:32 -0500
                      Re: ChatGPT Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 06:49 -0700
                    Re: ChatGPT Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 06:42 -0700
                      Re: ChatGPT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-19 15:51 +0200
                      Re: ChatGPT Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:05 -0700
                        Re: ChatGPT Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:12 -0700
    Re: ChatGPT "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 21:16 -0700

#611711 — Re: ChatGPT

ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success
passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the
GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S.
Medical Licensing Exam...
The Uniform Bar Exam
The SAT
GRE
USA Biology Olympiad Semifinal Exam
AP Exams
AMC Exams
Sommelier examinations
Wharton MBA exam
US medical licensing exam
Microbiology quiz
Law School Exams
Stanford Medical School clinical reasoning final


Is there a What's the Serial Number exam???


Crack Exam...


I'm sure Chatgpt can pass it....

Remember what Bill Gates always sez..."Where there is a lock, there is
a key".


I say, 'where there is a lock,
there is a prompt.

The prompt is the key.

It's no longer learn to code..
it's learn to prompt!

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#611713

On 5/27/2023 8:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success
> passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the
> GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S.
> Medical Licensing Exam...


Bullshit.

I gave it a simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question and it 
failed!..

It is something along the lines of, "If Wikipedia says it I'll just 
repeat it". It doesn't think.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611715

Physfitfreak wrote:
> 
> On 5/27/2023 8:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success
> > passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the
> > GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S.
> > Medical Licensing Exam...
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> I gave it a simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question and it
> failed!..
> 

What was the "simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question"?... so
that others here can confirm if
what you say is true or not.


If you don't post it here...then that confirms it isn't true.








-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611717

On 5/27/2023 9:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 5/27/2023 8:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success
>>> passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the
>>> GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S.
>>> Medical Licensing Exam...
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> I gave it a simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question and it
>> failed!..
>>
> 
> What was the "simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question"?... so
> that others here can confirm if
> what you say is true or not.
> 
> 
> If you don't post it here...then that confirms it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Hehe :) I can make you interested anytime I wish no matter how you try 
to weasel your way around it.

Telegram, for a limited period, allowed I believe less than 10 questions 
be asked from ChatGPT4 (latest version back then) free of charge. It 
isn't free anymore.

I asked it: "If you have 100 pounds of potatoes, knowing that they are 
99% water (weight percent) and let them dry in air long enough to get 
them down to 98% water, how much do they weigh now?"

The AI's answer reflected the same mistake that fools make :) Even after 
telling it the answer was wrong, it kept making a slightly different 
mistake. The poor thing was just like Alsing :-))) Couldn't really 
think. It just searched and searched in other areas each time for the 
answer. So about four of my questions got blown for nothing. But I got 
to understand its abilities, what it could really do and what it was 
helplessly not made for.







-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611720

Physfitfreak wrote:
> 
> On 5/27/2023 9:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/27/2023 8:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success
> >>> passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the
> >>> GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S.
> >>> Medical Licensing Exam...
> >>
> >> Bullshit.
> >>
> >> I gave it a simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question and it
> >> failed!..
> >>
> >
> > What was the "simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question"?... so
> > that others here can confirm if
> > what you say is true or not.
> >
> >
> > If you don't post it here...then that confirms it isn't true.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Hehe :) I can make you interested anytime I wish no matter how you try
> to weasel your way around it.
> 
> Telegram, for a limited period, allowed I believe less than 10 questions
> be asked from ChatGPT4 (latest version back then) free of charge. It
> isn't free anymore.
> 
> I asked it: "If you have 100 pounds of potatoes, knowing that they are
> 99% water (weight percent) and let them dry in air long enough to get
> them down to 98% water, how much do they weigh now?"
> 
> The AI's answer reflected the same mistake that fools make :) Even after
> telling it the answer was wrong, it kept making a slightly different
> mistake. The poor thing was just like Alsing :-))) Couldn't really
> think. It just searched and searched in other areas each time for the
> answer. So about four of my questions got blown for nothing. But I got
> to understand its abilities, what it could really do and what it was
> helplessly not made for.

Maybe your problem is...you need to Learn to Prompt.


Here is the answer ChatGPT ver 3 free version gave:

.................chatgpt........................................................

To solve this problem, we need to calculate the weight of water in the original 100 pounds of potatoes and then determine the weight of potatoes with 98% water content.

Let's start by finding the weight of water in 100 pounds of potatoes with 99% water content:

Weight of water = 99% of 100 pounds
= (99/100) * 100 pounds
= 99 pounds

Now, let's calculate the weight of potatoes (solid matter) in the original 100 pounds:

Weight of potatoes = Total weight - Weight of water
= 100 pounds - 99 pounds
= 1 pound

Since we want to find the weight of potatoes when the water content is reduced to 98%, we can set up the following equation:

Weight of potatoes = (Weight of potatoes + Weight of water) / (1 - 0.98)

Let's calculate the weight of potatoes with 98% water content:

Weight of potatoes = (1 pound + 99 pounds) / (1 - 0.98)
= 100 pounds / 0.02
= 5000 pounds

Therefore, when the potatoes are dried to 98% water content, they would weigh approximately 5000 pounds.






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611728

On 5/28/2023 12:22 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 5/27/2023 9:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/27/2023 8:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success
>>>>> passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the
>>>>> GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S.
>>>>> Medical Licensing Exam...
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> I gave it a simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question and it
>>>> failed!..
>>>>
>>>
>>> What was the "simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question"?... so
>>> that others here can confirm if
>>> what you say is true or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you don't post it here...then that confirms it isn't true.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hehe :) I can make you interested anytime I wish no matter how you try
>> to weasel your way around it.
>>
>> Telegram, for a limited period, allowed I believe less than 10 questions
>> be asked from ChatGPT4 (latest version back then) free of charge. It
>> isn't free anymore.
>>
>> I asked it: "If you have 100 pounds of potatoes, knowing that they are
>> 99% water (weight percent) and let them dry in air long enough to get
>> them down to 98% water, how much do they weigh now?"
>>
>> The AI's answer reflected the same mistake that fools make :) Even after
>> telling it the answer was wrong, it kept making a slightly different
>> mistake. The poor thing was just like Alsing :-))) Couldn't really
>> think. It just searched and searched in other areas each time for the
>> answer. So about four of my questions got blown for nothing. But I got
>> to understand its abilities, what it could really do and what it was
>> helplessly not made for.
> 
> Maybe your problem is...you need to Learn to Prompt.
> 
> 
> Here is the answer ChatGPT ver 3 free version gave:
> 
> .................chatgpt........................................................
> 
> To solve this problem, we need to calculate the weight of water in the original 100 pounds of potatoes and then determine the weight of potatoes with 98% water content.
> 
> Let's start by finding the weight of water in 100 pounds of potatoes with 99% water content:
> 
> Weight of water = 99% of 100 pounds
> = (99/100) * 100 pounds
> = 99 pounds
> 
> Now, let's calculate the weight of potatoes (solid matter) in the original 100 pounds:
> 
> Weight of potatoes = Total weight - Weight of water
> = 100 pounds - 99 pounds
> = 1 pound
> 
> Since we want to find the weight of potatoes when the water content is reduced to 98%, we can set up the following equation:
> 
> Weight of potatoes = (Weight of potatoes + Weight of water) / (1 - 0.98)
> 
> Let's calculate the weight of potatoes with 98% water content:
> 
> Weight of potatoes = (1 pound + 99 pounds) / (1 - 0.98)
> = 100 pounds / 0.02
> = 5000 pounds
> 
> Therefore, when the potatoes are dried to 98% water content, they would weigh approximately 5000 pounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Hehe :) As you see!

AI's problem is, it cannot think for itself. It can only refer to near 
endless sources of information based on its take of the task you give 
it. But that does _not_ equal thinking. Ability to analyze is something 
beyond having all the information in the world accessible to you and 
knowing the English language. A library cannot think.

The correct answer to the question is of course 50 pounds. When one 
pound of dry matter was 1% of total weight before, then having the same 
1 pound of dry matter as 2% of total weight requires that the total 
weight be half of what it was before, i.e. 50 pounds. But AI cannot do 
this reasoning cause it is an Alsing type of equipment. You can have an 
Alsing endlessly toil for you in various other ways, but thinking is not 
one of them.

By the way, if the AI you tried is free to use, then it is not even as 
good as the one I tried some months back.



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611729

On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 10:32:39 UTC+2, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 5/28/2023 12:22 AM, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > Physfitfreak wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 5/27/2023 9:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote: 
> >>> Physfitfreak wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 5/27/2023 8:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote: 
> >>>>> ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success 
> >>>>> passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the 
> >>>>> GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S. 
> >>>>> Medical Licensing Exam... 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Bullshit. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I gave it a simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question and it 
> >>>> failed!.. 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> What was the "simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question"?... so 
> >>> that others here can confirm if 
> >>> what you say is true or not. 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> If you don't post it here...then that confirms it isn't true. 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Hehe :) I can make you interested anytime I wish no matter how you try 
> >> to weasel your way around it. 
> >> 
> >> Telegram, for a limited period, allowed I believe less than 10 questions 
> >> be asked from ChatGPT4 (latest version back then) free of charge. It 
> >> isn't free anymore. 
> >> 
> >> I asked it: "If you have 100 pounds of potatoes, knowing that they are 
> >> 99% water (weight percent) and let them dry in air long enough to get 
> >> them down to 98% water, how much do they weigh now?" 
> >> 
> >> The AI's answer reflected the same mistake that fools make :) Even after 
> >> telling it the answer was wrong, it kept making a slightly different 
> >> mistake. The poor thing was just like Alsing :-))) Couldn't really 
> >> think. It just searched and searched in other areas each time for the 
> >> answer. So about four of my questions got blown for nothing. But I got 
> >> to understand its abilities, what it could really do and what it was 
> >> helplessly not made for. 
> > 
> > Maybe your problem is...you need to Learn to Prompt. 
> > 
> > 
> > Here is the answer ChatGPT ver 3 free version gave: 
> > 
> > .................chatgpt........................................................ 
> > 
> > To solve this problem, we need to calculate the weight of water in the original 100 pounds of potatoes and then determine the weight of potatoes with 98% water content. 
> > 
> > Let's start by finding the weight of water in 100 pounds of potatoes with 99% water content: 
> > 
> > Weight of water = 99% of 100 pounds 
> > = (99/100) * 100 pounds 
> > = 99 pounds 
> > 
> > Now, let's calculate the weight of potatoes (solid matter) in the original 100 pounds: 
> > 
> > Weight of potatoes = Total weight - Weight of water 
> > = 100 pounds - 99 pounds 
> > = 1 pound 
> > 
> > Since we want to find the weight of potatoes when the water content is reduced to 98%, we can set up the following equation: 
> > 
> > Weight of potatoes = (Weight of potatoes + Weight of water) / (1 - 0.98) 
> > 
> > Let's calculate the weight of potatoes with 98% water content: 
> > 
> > Weight of potatoes = (1 pound + 99 pounds) / (1 - 0.98) 
> > = 100 pounds / 0.02 
> > = 5000 pounds 
> > 
> > Therefore, when the potatoes are dried to 98% water content, they would weigh approximately 5000 pounds. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> Hehe :) As you see! 
> 
> AI's problem is, it cannot think for itself. It can only refer to near 
> endless sources of information based on its take of the task you give 
> it. But that does _not_ equal thinking. Ability to analyze is something 
> beyond having all the information in the world accessible to you and 
> knowing the English language. A library cannot think. 

Well, you're mistaken. And a library doesn't know 
English language. Or does it?
Turing test is: can a machine use common language
interface with skills comparable to a human. Turing 
believed that's equivalent to thinking, and Turing was 
right about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611769

On 5/28/2023 3:31 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 5/28/2023 12:22 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/27/2023 9:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/27/2023 8:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success
>>>>>> passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the
>>>>>> GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S.
>>>>>> Medical Licensing Exam...
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I gave it a simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question and it
>>>>> failed!..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What was the "simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question"?... so
>>>> that others here can confirm if
>>>> what you say is true or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you don't post it here...then that confirms it isn't true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hehe :) I can make you interested anytime I wish no matter how you try
>>> to weasel your way around it.
>>>
>>> Telegram, for a limited period, allowed I believe less than 10 questions
>>> be asked from ChatGPT4 (latest version back then) free of charge. It
>>> isn't free anymore.
>>>
>>> I asked it: "If you have 100 pounds of potatoes, knowing that they are
>>> 99% water (weight percent) and let them dry in air long enough to get
>>> them down to 98% water, how much do they weigh now?"
>>>
>>> The AI's answer reflected the same mistake that fools make :) Even after
>>> telling it the answer was wrong, it kept making a slightly different
>>> mistake. The poor thing was just like Alsing :-))) Couldn't really
>>> think. It just searched and searched in other areas each time for the
>>> answer. So about four of my questions got blown for nothing. But I got
>>> to understand its abilities, what it could really do and what it was
>>> helplessly not made for.
>>
>> Maybe your problem is...you need to Learn to Prompt.
>>
>>
>> Here is the answer ChatGPT ver 3 free version gave:
>>
>> .................chatgpt........................................................
>>
>> To solve this problem, we need to calculate the weight of water in the 
>> original 100 pounds of potatoes and then determine the weight of 
>> potatoes with 98% water content.
>>
>> Let's start by finding the weight of water in 100 pounds of potatoes 
>> with 99% water content:
>>
>> Weight of water = 99% of 100 pounds
>> = (99/100) * 100 pounds
>> = 99 pounds
>>
>> Now, let's calculate the weight of potatoes (solid matter) in the 
>> original 100 pounds:
>>
>> Weight of potatoes = Total weight - Weight of water
>> = 100 pounds - 99 pounds
>> = 1 pound
>>
>> Since we want to find the weight of potatoes when the water content is 
>> reduced to 98%, we can set up the following equation:
>>
>> Weight of potatoes = (Weight of potatoes + Weight of water) / (1 - 0.98)
>>
>> Let's calculate the weight of potatoes with 98% water content:
>>
>> Weight of potatoes = (1 pound + 99 pounds) / (1 - 0.98)
>> = 100 pounds / 0.02
>> = 5000 pounds
>>
>> Therefore, when the potatoes are dried to 98% water content, they 
>> would weigh approximately 5000 pounds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Hehe :) As you see!
> 
> AI's problem is, it cannot think for itself. It can only refer to near 
> endless sources of information based on its take of the task you give 
> it. But that does _not_ equal thinking. Ability to analyze is something 
> beyond having all the information in the world accessible to you and 
> knowing the English language. A library cannot think.
> 
> The correct answer to the question is of course 50 pounds. When one 
> pound of dry matter was 1% of total weight before, then having the same 
> 1 pound of dry matter as 2% of total weight requires that the total 
> weight be half of what it was before, i.e. 50 pounds. But AI cannot do 
> this reasoning cause it is an Alsing type of equipment. You can have an 
> Alsing endlessly toil for you in various other ways, but thinking is not 
> one of them.
> 
> By the way, if the AI you tried is free to use, then it is not even as 
> good as the one I tried some months back.
> 
> 
> 

I just used the free version of the AI online. This is what it gave me:

---------------------------------------------------------------
To solve this problem, we need to calculate the weight of the potatoes 
after the water content decreases from 99% to 98%.

Let's assume the initial weight of the potatoes is 100 pounds, and their 
water content is 99%. This means that 99% of the weight is water and 1% 
is the dry matter.

Weight of water = 99% of 100 pounds = 99 pounds
Weight of dry matter = 1% of 100 pounds = 1 pound

Now, let's calculate the weight of the potatoes when their water content 
decreases to 98%.

New weight of dry matter = Weight of dry matter / (1 - final water content)
= 1 pound / (1 - 0.98)
= 1 pound / 0.02
= 50 pounds

The weight of the water will remain the same since it's not evaporated. 
Therefore, the weight of the potatoes after drying to 98% water content is:

Weight of dry matter + Weight of water
= 50 pounds + 99 pounds
= 149 pounds

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, it cannot keep the logic for long. As soon as its 
attention shifts, the line of logic suffers when it comes back to the 
previous point. So it can sure start on the right path, but commits 
simple mistakes in logic. It's nothing beyond an Alsing. At best, some 
hit-and-miss equipment.


Now why is that? Let's be a physicist and take a look. The developers 
have jumped logical steps early on, banking on the assumption that 
intelligence is some emerging process. Well, tough luck. It is not.

This project hasn't worked so far because bullshit doesn't get you 
anywhere. Bullshit only works in the business of fooling people to make 
money. It does not work in science.

The very first step of development of it has thus had a flaw :) What 
_was_ the very first step, you might ask. It is the same step that 
Backus (creator of FORTRAN language) demanded around 1960 to get done 
and never saw it fully done. It was only half done, which is what now we 
know as FORTRAN language.

Backus was very irritated by the extent of spoon-feeding work required 
in the assembly language. So he aimed at a language where you'd give the 
necessary information to it and what you want done (and knowing in 
advance that with that information that purpose can be fulfilled by a 
programmer), then would ask something like, "Now create a code to 
implement that purpose." He wanted the compiler to take care of all the 
little steps and get the code correctly written in the machine language. 
Well, this never got done! Instead of going towards achieving this goal, 
the fucking "engineers" kept repeating the same shit over and over in 
the form of newly made programming languages that did nothing but 
repeating the already existing abilities. The task got shifted from the 
hands of scientists and fell into the hands of "engineers" :-( So now we 
have 750 different programming languages, and not _one_ of them does 
what Backus wanted.

In the interview he gave 6 months before his death, he expressed his 
bitter disappointment in the way programming has "developed." In fact, 
programming never developed beyond the FORTRAN that he had created in 
early 60s. Nobody took one step beyond that.

Now these "AI" guys want to jump ahead of the horses. They want to have 
their programs do that without solving this fundamental issue first. 
Their idea is, "Just give it all the information in the world and train 
it by telling it what is right in various different situations". As if 
by some magic, the program itself - THAT SAME FORTRAN! - can somehow 
learn to do that. But this is bullshit of course.

So when the day comes that what Backus wanted is achieved (which is 
achievable indeed), only then, the process can successfully continue. 
But "engineers" don't and won't and cannot do that. Mathematicians and 
scientists can. The departments of "natural philosophy" can do it, not 
your fucking "engineering" schools.







-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617436

On 5/28/2023 6:17 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 5/28/2023 3:31 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 5/28/2023 12:22 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/27/2023 9:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/27/2023 8:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success
>>>>>>> passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the
>>>>>>> GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S.
>>>>>>> Medical Licensing Exam...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I gave it a simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question and it
>>>>>> failed!..
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the "simple but tricky (to some idiots) math question"?... so
>>>>> that others here can confirm if
>>>>> what you say is true or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't post it here...then that confirms it isn't true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hehe :) I can make you interested anytime I wish no matter how you try
>>>> to weasel your way around it.
>>>>
>>>> Telegram, for a limited period, allowed I believe less than 10 
>>>> questions
>>>> be asked from ChatGPT4 (latest version back then) free of charge. It
>>>> isn't free anymore.
>>>>
>>>> I asked it: "If you have 100 pounds of potatoes, knowing that they are
>>>> 99% water (weight percent) and let them dry in air long enough to get
>>>> them down to 98% water, how much do they weigh now?"
>>>>
>>>> The AI's answer reflected the same mistake that fools make :) Even 
>>>> after
>>>> telling it the answer was wrong, it kept making a slightly different
>>>> mistake. The poor thing was just like Alsing :-))) Couldn't really
>>>> think. It just searched and searched in other areas each time for the
>>>> answer. So about four of my questions got blown for nothing. But I got
>>>> to understand its abilities, what it could really do and what it was
>>>> helplessly not made for.
>>>
>>> Maybe your problem is...you need to Learn to Prompt.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the answer ChatGPT ver 3 free version gave:
>>>
>>> .................chatgpt........................................................
>>>
>>> To solve this problem, we need to calculate the weight of water in 
>>> the original 100 pounds of potatoes and then determine the weight of 
>>> potatoes with 98% water content.
>>>
>>> Let's start by finding the weight of water in 100 pounds of potatoes 
>>> with 99% water content:
>>>
>>> Weight of water = 99% of 100 pounds
>>> = (99/100) * 100 pounds
>>> = 99 pounds
>>>
>>> Now, let's calculate the weight of potatoes (solid matter) in the 
>>> original 100 pounds:
>>>
>>> Weight of potatoes = Total weight - Weight of water
>>> = 100 pounds - 99 pounds
>>> = 1 pound
>>>
>>> Since we want to find the weight of potatoes when the water content 
>>> is reduced to 98%, we can set up the following equation:
>>>
>>> Weight of potatoes = (Weight of potatoes + Weight of water) / (1 - 0.98)
>>>
>>> Let's calculate the weight of potatoes with 98% water content:
>>>
>>> Weight of potatoes = (1 pound + 99 pounds) / (1 - 0.98)
>>> = 100 pounds / 0.02
>>> = 5000 pounds
>>>
>>> Therefore, when the potatoes are dried to 98% water content, they 
>>> would weigh approximately 5000 pounds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hehe :) As you see!
>>
>> AI's problem is, it cannot think for itself. It can only refer to near 
>> endless sources of information based on its take of the task you give 
>> it. But that does _not_ equal thinking. Ability to analyze is 
>> something beyond having all the information in the world accessible to 
>> you and knowing the English language. A library cannot think.
>>
>> The correct answer to the question is of course 50 pounds. When one 
>> pound of dry matter was 1% of total weight before, then having the 
>> same 1 pound of dry matter as 2% of total weight requires that the 
>> total weight be half of what it was before, i.e. 50 pounds. But AI 
>> cannot do this reasoning cause it is an Alsing type of equipment. You 
>> can have an Alsing endlessly toil for you in various other ways, but 
>> thinking is not one of them.
>>
>> By the way, if the AI you tried is free to use, then it is not even as 
>> good as the one I tried some months back.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> I just used the free version of the AI online. This is what it gave me:
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> To solve this problem, we need to calculate the weight of the potatoes 
> after the water content decreases from 99% to 98%.
> 
> Let's assume the initial weight of the potatoes is 100 pounds, and their 
> water content is 99%. This means that 99% of the weight is water and 1% 
> is the dry matter.
> 
> Weight of water = 99% of 100 pounds = 99 pounds
> Weight of dry matter = 1% of 100 pounds = 1 pound
> 
> Now, let's calculate the weight of the potatoes when their water content 
> decreases to 98%.
> 
> New weight of dry matter = Weight of dry matter / (1 - final water content)
> = 1 pound / (1 - 0.98)
> = 1 pound / 0.02
> = 50 pounds
> 
> The weight of the water will remain the same since it's not evaporated. 
> Therefore, the weight of the potatoes after drying to 98% water content is:
> 
> Weight of dry matter + Weight of water
> = 50 pounds + 99 pounds
> = 149 pounds
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As you can see, it cannot keep the logic for long. As soon as its 
> attention shifts, the line of logic suffers when it comes back to the 
> previous point. So it can sure start on the right path, but commits 
> simple mistakes in logic. It's nothing beyond an Alsing. At best, some 
> hit-and-miss equipment.
> 
> 
> Now why is that? Let's be a physicist and take a look. The developers 
> have jumped logical steps early on, banking on the assumption that 
> intelligence is some emerging process. Well, tough luck. It is not.
> 
> This project hasn't worked so far because bullshit doesn't get you 
> anywhere. Bullshit only works in the business of fooling people to make 
> money. It does not work in science.
> 
> The very first step of development of it has thus had a flaw :) What 
> _was_ the very first step, you might ask. It is the same step that 
> Backus (creator of FORTRAN language) demanded around 1960 to get done 
> and never saw it fully done. It was only half done, which is what now we 
> know as FORTRAN language.
> 
> Backus was very irritated by the extent of spoon-feeding work required 
> in the assembly language. So he aimed at a language where you'd give the 
> necessary information to it and what you want done (and knowing in 
> advance that with that information that purpose can be fulfilled by a 
> programmer), then would ask something like, "Now create a code to 
> implement that purpose." He wanted the compiler to take care of all the 
> little steps and get the code correctly written in the machine language. 
> Well, this never got done! Instead of going towards achieving this goal, 
> the fucking "engineers" kept repeating the same shit over and over in 
> the form of newly made programming languages that did nothing but 
> repeating the already existing abilities. The task got shifted from the 
> hands of scientists and fell into the hands of "engineers" :-( So now we 
> have 750 different programming languages, and not _one_ of them does 
> what Backus wanted.
> 
> In the interview he gave 6 months before his death, he expressed his 
> bitter disappointment in the way programming has "developed." In fact, 
> programming never developed beyond the FORTRAN that he had created in 
> early 60s. Nobody took one step beyond that.
> 
> Now these "AI" guys want to jump ahead of the horses. They want to have 
> their programs do that without solving this fundamental issue first. 
> Their idea is, "Just give it all the information in the world and train 
> it by telling it what is right in various different situations". As if 
> by some magic, the program itself - THAT SAME FORTRAN! - can somehow 
> learn to do that. But this is bullshit of course.
> 
> So when the day comes that what Backus wanted is achieved (which is 
> achievable indeed), only then, the process can successfully continue. 
> But "engineers" don't and won't and cannot do that. Mathematicians and 
> scientists can. The departments of "natural philosophy" can do it, not 
> your fucking "engineering" schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



By the way, it is fair to add that Backus later did the math required 
for taking that vital next step forward in creating and increasing 
actual intelligence in a programming language (i.e. making it more and 
more so-called "high-level"). But by then (late 1960s) millions of 
"engineers" had hijacked programming languages for making money off of 
them. A "cook" doesn't care about the science of nutrition. He just 
looks up the recipes and follows the steps and boom - his food is ready, 
it's time for him to get paid and go home.

So nobody in 1969 (I think that's when he got it done) even understood 
Backus's vital work aimed at that goal. In fact, only one mathematician 
in the world ever studied his work fully and to some extent participated 
as well. And Backus tried and tried from then on for decades to put this 
into the minds of those who should've taken such concepts and 
implemented them in the programming languages. He never succeeded. 
Businesses and governments and scientific institutions packed with 
"engineers" instead of scientists had gotten their "FORTRAN" and were 
happily cooking meals with it. They didn't want anything more. And to 
this day, 63 years later, any programming language you pick, you see the 
same old FORTRAN disguised, thanks to individuals with nothing in mind 
other than paying their mortgages with it.

So Backus did his part, both in the first vital steps (creating 
FORTRAN), and more so in about 10 years of additional work thereafter, 
focusing on adding "intelligence" to the language enough to at least 
successfully handle his original 1960 question, or demand. But nobody 
else did their parts. Instead of doing it, they would only give him 
"rewards" :-( And very soon it was Carter era, the beginning of the end 
of the USA as a first world nation, culminating in the full-speed 
descent with Reagan and whoever came after to lead and deal with such 
matters and opportunities for advancement of humans.

Hehe :)

Dark Ages happen, don't they :) ... Just leave your science to your 
"engineers." To "cooks". Leave your Churches in the hands of prostitutes.







-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618256

My main point was, that Backus didn't to solve the whole project after 
FORTRAN was created. It is silly to think that just one man could do 
that. But he needed to do his part, which he did!

In fact, in the last interview performed with Backus a few months before 
his death (died in 2006 I think), when asked if his "functional program" 
(NOT the functional style of programming! See *** after this text below) 
work has been successful, he answered "No." He didn't get any help in 
it, and the scope of work had inherent realities tied to it that were 
extremely difficult to handle. When asked for one example of such 
difficulties, he said one was that a functional program could do very 
difficult tasks very easily, but at the same time had great difficulty 
carrying out very simple tasks. Both would be required, of course, in a 
higher level program where you leave much more to the program itself to 
"think over" and decide.

His explanation of why it couldn't do a simple task well was (obviously) 
that these simple tasks are indeed tied to an extremely large set of 
factors coming together to make that little task carried out correctly. 
And each of those factors, in turn, are tied to their own large sets of 
factors to be there present to begin with. So it was a divergent process 
of trying to get things done. Functional program carries out isolated 
but gigantically cumbersome and time-consuming tasks very easily, but a 
lot of simple tasks which participate in making a correct decision are 
of divergent type as explained.

In the end, he called the success of his attempts a "mixed bag". But 
isn't any scientific endeavors' beginning steps and earlier work a 
"mixed bag"? I think, as I said many times here, that he did not get an 
iota of help from others in this regard and this was the determining 
factor for its failure. He did his part; others didn't.

The interview was a very difficult one because Backus had always shown 
(since early 1950s - after a tumor surgery on his cranium was performed) 
some degree of nerve and brain problems, and it had gotten much worse at 
the time of the interview and had affected his way of finding words, 
accessing memories, and overall expressing himself. Even his 1960s talks 
were delivered with difficulty. Aware of all this, the interviewer did 
an excellent job of preparing for it by having all the minute facts 
written beforehand and memorized, and in front of him to assist Backus 
step by step along the way. In fact, perhaps 95 percent of the facts 
that were expressed in that interview came from the interviewer, not by 
Backus. Backus mostly smiled and said "ya, ya" etc :-) A very hard 
interview to perform right, by the master of it, Grady Booch, himself an 
all-time enthusiast in such developments.

That kind of spoon feeding by Booch pissed some people off (as seen in 
the comments to it) and gave the impression Booch was preventing Backus 
from talking, but reality was that the nature of Backus's nerve problems 
was of the kind that if Booch waited a bit longer for him to respond it 
would get worse rapidly (positive feedback type), so he had to intervene 
and lead the conversation to control that unstable situation, and for 
that he needed facts, baby. A lot of facts :)  Hehe :) Anyway, I 
wouldn't want to be in Booch's shoes when I watched it.

That great man, Backus, even after going through a skull bone tumor 
treatment in his college years, kept struggling for his goals and 
constantly stayed honest and truthful about himself and others alike, 
publicly as well as privately. At the worst of times in the interview, 
when being so candid would be scandalous to others, either he'd just 
stay silent and smiled very tellingly, or Booch would quickly change the 
subject for him :) The latter sure didn't want Backus linger too much on 
his sadism that he had exerted on other kids in his youth, and was now 
revealing :-))) Hahhahhah :)

So Backus had kept himself on-course despite all that. All 80 plus years 
of that!


*** The "functional programming style":
It is a totally unrelated matter to the "functional program" of Backus. 
The former is just a silly style of programming that is sometimes shown 
in some books and has no real use whatsoever. At best it suits crazy 
useless people like Relf in here.

Let me quote one of the known masters of computer programming languages 
about "functional programming style":

   "They are intended as a mind-expanding exploration of the power of 
the functions, not as a prescription for a good programming style."
                                 - David Flanagan, 2011

So it has nothing to do with the "functional program" that Backus was 
trying to create. Many were and are under the impression that when 
Backus proposed the "functional program" he meant the same functional 
style of programming that can exists in some languages. So these people 
never even understood one word of what Backus was talking about.

I've looked in reddit and twitter to see if this misunderstanding is 
still there. It is there, like it was there anytime between 1969 and the 
present! Still people who talk about Backus's "functional program" 
mistake it with that silly style of programming one could out of 
curiosity deploy in JavaScript or elsewhere. Crazy, isn't it.



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618259

On 8/19/2023 8:01 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> The former is just a silly style of programming that is sometimes shown 
> in some books and has no real use whatsoever. At best it suits crazy 
> useless people like Relf in here.


.. to make it boost the complexity in his programs to insane levels so 
he can then step back and masturbate with it.



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618263

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:32:14 AM UTC-5, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 8/19/2023 8:01 AM, Physfitfreak wrote: 
> > The former is just a silly style of programming that is sometimes shown 
> > in some books and has no real use whatsoever. At best it suits crazy 
> > useless people like Relf in here.
> .. to make it boost the complexity in his programs to insane levels so 
> he can then step back and masturbate with it.

Relf is the sort of programmer who writes only for himself. 
He would have loved to write APL one-liners back when it
was considered a fun trick. 

Don't confuse the garbage that Relf writes with exemplary
examples of functional programming style.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618262

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:01:55 AM UTC-5, Physfitfreak wrote:

> *** The "functional programming style": 
> It is a totally unrelated matter to the "functional program" of Backus. 
> The former is just a silly style of programming that is sometimes shown 
> in some books and has no real use whatsoever. At best it suits crazy 
> useless people like Relf in here. 

You speak from ignorance. The introduction of functional 
programming techniques into object-oriented languages has
greatly increased their readability and succinctness. I take it
that you reject the use of lambda expressions that are now 
part of c#, Java, c++, JavaScript, Ruby etc.? If so, your loss.

I remember when Dijkstra introduced what is now known as
"structured programming" with his seminal letter, "Go To 
Statement Considered Harmful". I remember the enormous
skepticism expressed by old-style programmers about his
concepts. Now, the ideas expressed in his letter are 
implemented as essential features of most modern high-
level programming languages.

Object-oriented programming techniques were once 
considered merely a fad, especially since the exemplars
of OOP, such as Smalltalk, were not especially efficient.
But with advances in hardware, programmer time, in most
(but not all) use cases, is now understood to be far more
expensive than program execution time.

And so on. New programming techniques, design patterns, 
analysis concepts, and testing paradigms get introduced 
on a regular basis, and their ultimate value gets tested on
the ultimate battlefield of actual program design,
testing, and implementation. I've seen fads come and go.

Functional programming is not a fad, but instead has been
embraced as an essential part of the most widely used
programming languages.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618264

Le 19/08/2023 à 15:42, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog a écrit :
> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:01:55 AM UTC-5, Physfitfreak wrote:
> 
>> *** The "functional programming style":
>> It is a totally unrelated matter to the "functional program" of Backus.
>> The former is just a silly style of programming that is sometimes shown
>> in some books and has no real use whatsoever. At best it suits crazy
>> useless people like Relf in here.
> 
> You speak from ignorance. The introduction of functional
> programming techniques into object-oriented languages has
> greatly increased their readability and succinctness. I take it
> that you reject the use of lambda expressions that are now
> part of c#, Java, c++, JavaScript, Ruby etc.? If so, your loss.
> 
> I remember when Dijkstra introduced what is now known as
> "structured programming" with his seminal letter, "Go To
> Statement Considered Harmful". I remember the enormous
> skepticism expressed by old-style programmers about his
> concepts. Now, the ideas expressed in his letter are
> implemented as essential features of most modern high-
> level programming languages.
> 
> Object-oriented programming techniques were once
> considered merely a fad, especially since the exemplars
> of OOP, such as Smalltalk, were not especially efficient.
> But with advances in hardware, programmer time, in most
> (but not all) use cases, is now understood to be far more
> expensive than program execution time.
> 
> And so on. New programming techniques, design patterns,
> analysis concepts, and testing paradigms get introduced
> on a regular basis, and their ultimate value gets tested on
> the ultimate battlefield of actual program design,
> testing, and implementation. I've seen fads come and go.
> 
> Functional programming is not a fad, but instead has been
> embraced as an essential part of the most widely used
> programming languages.
> 

+1

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/engineering/running-lisp-in-production/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618300

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:42:43 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> Functional programming is not a fad, but instead has been 
> embraced as an essential part of the most widely used 
> programming languages.

By the way, for your question on the thread 
"Where is Help for Excel 2016 VBA"
try this link:
https://github.com/OfficeDev/VBA-content
"these offline CHMs represent a snapshot of
 the content as of 11/06/2015"

You have very interesting stories to tell about
Lotus 1-2-3. I once wrote a neural net demo using 1-2-3,
about 20, 30 years ago??? Also the comments you 
made about differing "Islamic Life Handbooks" etc.
:-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618301

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:05:06 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> "Where is Help for Excel 2016 VBA" 
Sorry, that was the title of the thread on microsoft.com
I *meant*
"Off-Line Microsoft Excel 2016 Help Files :-)" in sci.physics

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611718

On 5/27/2023 6:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> ChatGPT, an online chatbot created by OpenAI, has shown success
> passing several national benchmarking exams, including the SAT, the
> GRE and a bar exam. It has even shown the ability to pass the U.S.
> Medical Licensing Exam...
> The Uniform Bar Exam
[...]

Yeah, taught by us. All of us humans. It can read a shit load of data 
and train on it. Super mind? Yeah, sure, by us.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web