• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      What you’ve described would be like looking at a chart of various fluid boiling points at atmospheric pressure and being like “Wow, water boils at 100 C!” It would only be interesting if that somehow weren’t the case.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Where is the “Wow!” in this post? It states a fact, like “Water boils at 100C under 1 atm”, and shows that the student (ChatGPT) has correctly reproduced the experiment.

        Why do you think schools keep teaching that “Water boils at 100C under 1 atm”? If it’s so obvious, should they stop putting it on the test and failing those who say it boils at “69C, giggity”?

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Derek feeling the need to comment that the bias in the training data correlates with the bias of the corrected output of a commercial product just seemed really bizarre to me. Maybe it’s got the same appeal as a zoo or something, I never really got into watching animals be animals in a zoo.

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Hm? Watching animals be animals at a zoo, is a way better sampling of how animals are animals, than for example watching that wildlife “documentary” where they’d throw lemmings of a cliff “for dramatic effect” (a “commercially corrected bias”?).

            In this case, the “corrected output” is just 42, not 37, but as the temperature increases on the Y axis, we get a glimpse of internal biases, which actually let through other patterns of the training data, like the 37.