**OFF TOPIC** but perhaps of interest to some on this list. I apologize in advance to those who may be offended. The byline: ******************************** "ChatGPT's odds of getting code questions correct are worse than a coin flip But its suggestions are so annoyingly plausible" ************************************* from here: https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/07/chatgpt_stack_overflow_ai/ Hmm... Perhaps not surprising. Sounds like some expert consultants I've met. ? Just for amusement. I am ignorant about this and have no strongly held views, Cheers to all, Bert
OFF TOPIC: chatGPT glibly produces a lot of wrong answers?
4 messages · Bert Gunter, Stephen H. Dawson, DSL, Calum Polwart +1 more
Thanks. https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-ai-hackers-can-simply-talk-computers-into-misbehaving-ad488686?mod=hp_lead_pos10 Ever heard of AI prompt injection? *Stephen Dawson, DSL* /Executive Strategy Consultant/ Business & Technology +1 (865) 804-3454 http://www.shdawson.com
On 8/13/23 13:49, Bert Gunter wrote:
**OFF TOPIC** but perhaps of interest to some on this list. I apologize in advance to those who may be offended. The byline: ******************************** "ChatGPT's odds of getting code questions correct are worse than a coin flip But its suggestions are so annoyingly plausible" ************************************* from here: https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/07/chatgpt_stack_overflow_ai/ Hmm... Perhaps not surprising. Sounds like some expert consultants I've met. ? Just for amusement. I am ignorant about this and have no strongly held views, Cheers to all, Bert [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
It does often behave better if you say to it "that doesn't seem to be working" and perhaps some error message It is afterall a language tool. Its function is to provide text that seems real. If you ask it a science question and ask it to provide references in Vancouver format, it can format the references perfectly. They will be from real authors (often who have published in the general field), they will be in real journals for the field. But the title is entirely false but plausible. Expect many a scammer to get caught out...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2023, 18:50 Bert Gunter, <bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> wrote:
**OFF TOPIC** but perhaps of interest to some on this list. I apologize in advance to those who may be offended. The byline: ******************************** "ChatGPT's odds of getting code questions correct are worse than a coin flip But its suggestions are so annoyingly plausible" ************************************* from here: https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/07/chatgpt_stack_overflow_ai/ Hmm... Perhaps not surprising. Sounds like some expert consultants I've met. ? Just for amusement. I am ignorant about this and have no strongly held views, Cheers to all, Bert [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Hi Bert, The article notes that chatGPT often gets the concept wrong, rather than the facts. I think this can be traced to the one who poses the question. I have often encountered requests for help that did not ask for what was really wanted. I was recently asked if I could graphically concatenate years of derived quantities that were based on an aggregation of daily cycles. You get an average daily cycle for each year, but this doesn't necessarily connect to the average daily cycle for the next year. It didn't work, but it was a case of YKWIM (You Know What I Mean). In this failure of communication, the questioner frames the question in a way that may be figured out by a human, but is not logically consistent. It is the basis for some very funny scenes in Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker" series, but can be intensely frustrating to both parties in real life. Jim
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 3:50?AM Bert Gunter <bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> wrote:
**OFF TOPIC** but perhaps of interest to some on this list. I apologize in advance to those who may be offended. The byline: ******************************** "ChatGPT's odds of getting code questions correct are worse than a coin flip But its suggestions are so annoyingly plausible" ************************************* from here: https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/07/chatgpt_stack_overflow_ai/ Hmm... Perhaps not surprising. Sounds like some expert consultants I've met. ? Just for amusement. I am ignorant about this and have no strongly held views, Cheers to all, Bert [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.