Please start a new thread for this topic since it is different from the topic of the current one. (Although I think we already had a recent thread on it.)Hornbein said:
It's like the two guys running from a grizzly bear. One guy says, don't you realize we can't outrun the bear? The other guy sez, I don't have to. I only have to outrun you.PeterDonis said:
I didn't say it did.Hornbein said:
I'll grant you one thing. ChatGPT can stick to the point more than you can!Hornbein said:
That would be a very interesting topic for a separate thread. The ideas of Thomas Kuhn (normal science vs revolutionary science) would be very relevant.Hornbein said:
We all see that. Eventually AI will be able to take over most things. But, if you asked ChatGPT currently to teach you theoretical physics and mark your homework, it would fail. And it would fail in dangerous ways because it would never say "I don't know" - it would just give you some spiel that looks plausible.Hornbein said:
HalDemystifier said:
Diagnostic in medicine.Hornbein said:
Dr. House.physika said:
If it's a homework, then one can cheat even without that tool, by asking another human to do the homework. Any by the way, scientific papers written completely by a computer program already exist.vanhees71 said:
You value ChatGPT's opinion over mine, eh? So great is your respect for artificial intelligence.PeroK said:
Intelligence is double-edged. For example, a chess computer never gets fed up playing chess. A human may lose interest in a game or the game in general. You have been identifying the ability the play high-level chess as intelligence. But, human thinking is multi-faceted and can be flawed and self-contradictory.Hornbein said:
You mean you don't understand the meanings of the words you're writing?Hornbein said:
I think it's a bit dismissive to say its just words. Text can encode any kind of finite discrete information, including concepts. In fact, the use of concepts might be something ChatGPT is especially good at.PeterDonis said:
No, "text" alone can't do that. Text only encodes things that aren't text to humans, or other entities who can understand the semantic meanings involved. ChatGPT can't do that; we know that because we know how ChatGPT works: as I said, it works solely by looking at connections between words, and it has no information at all about connections between words and things that aren't words.Jarvis323 said:
Even if we accept this as true for purposes of discussion (I'm not sure it's entirely true, but that's a matter of opinion that goes well off topic for this thread), note that ChatGPT does not do these things. A chess or go computer program makes moves that affect the world, and it sees the changes in the world that result; it also sees its opponent making moves and sees the changes in the world that result. That is true even for a program like Alpha Zero that learned solely by playing itself.Hornbein said:
PeterDonis said:
No, it's not. The people who built it told us how they did it.Jarvis323 said:
We don't have to to know what its inputs are. And its inputs are a fixed set of training data text. It gets no inputs that aren't text. Humans get enormous amounts of inputs that aren't text. And all those non-text inputs are where our understanding of the meanings of words comes from.Jarvis323 said:
This isn't accurate. It learns a model for generating new data in the same distribution as the training data. It does have information from the training data in some latent form of memory, but also it has what it has learned that allows it to use that information to create new data. The latter is mysterious and not so limited in theory.PeterDonis said:
Sure, but that doesn't give it any new input. Its internal model is never calibrated against any further data.Jarvis323 said:
It's not "creating new data" because whatever output it generates, and whatever response that output causes in the external world, is never used to update the internal model.Jarvis323 said:
They didn't do it though, back propagation did it.PeterDonis said:
PeterDonis said:
You're quibbling. They gave it a fixed set of input data and executed a training algorithm that generated an internal model. The fact that the resulting internal model was not known in advance to the programmers, nor understood by them (or anyone else) once it was generated is irrelevant to the points I have been making.Jarvis323 said:
That's true, but then the next version will still have the same limitations as the current one: its data set is fixed and its internal model won't get updated once it's generated from that fixed data set.Jarvis323 said:
PeterDonis said:
How would you define "it understands"? Does it understand or does it seem it understands?PeroK said:
Perhaps that says something about the relative difficulty of those two topics!martinbn said:I tried some simple high school math questions. It fails. But it can write articles on the foundations fo QM just like the experts in the field.
But is this surprising? Aren't those articles resulting from a "clever" algorithm created by a clever person?martinbn said:But it can write articles on the foundations fo QM just like the experts in the field.
PeroK said:
The foundations of QM are to a large part philosophy and thus texts about it can be built by an AI just imitating the usual babbling of this community. To answer a concrete physics or math question is more difficult since you expect a concrete unique answer and no babbling. SCNR.martinbn said:I tried some simple high school math questions. It fails. But it can write articles on the foundations fo QM just like the experts in the field.
Mathematica, on the other hand, can answer high school math questions, but can't write articles on quantum foundations. Those are simply different tools, it doesn't follow from it that one thing is easy and the other hard.martinbn said:I tried some simple high school math questions. It fails. But it can write articles on the foundations fo QM just like the experts in the field.
True. But let me just remind that what you just said here (and what I am saying now) is "babbling", not a unique answer. Both "babbling" and unique answers have a value for humans, and require intelligence from a human side. People who are good in unique answers but very bad in "babbling" are probably autists.vanhees71 said:
See my #89.PeroK said:
No, Mathematica cannot answer high school questions.Demystifier said:
It can't if the questions are written in normal English. But it can if they are written in formal Mathematica language. For example, instead of asking "What is the solution of ...", in Mathematica you write something like "Solve[...]".martinbn said:
What if the problem is "the room is 5 by 8 the price of carpet is 3 per m^2. What is the cost?" Or some geometry problem which reaquires for the solution to prove something.Demystifier said:
I believe we are not far from a tool which will combine ideas of systems such as ChatGPT and Mathematica to solve such problems.martinbn said:
import numpy as np
# Define the Hamiltonian for the quantum particle in a well
def Hamiltonian(x, p, mass, well_width):
H = (p**2) / (2 * mass) + (well_width**2) * (x**2) / 2
return H
# Define the decoherence functional for the quantum particle in a well
def decoherence_functional(x1, x2, t1, t2, mass, well_width):
delta = x1 - x2
prefactor = (mass / (2 * np.pi * (t1 - t2)))**0.5
exponent = - mass * delta**2 / (2 * (t1 - t2))
D = prefactor * np.exp(exponent)
return D
# Define the function that computes the probabilities for the quantum particle in a well
def probabilities(x1_values, x2_values, t1, t2, mass, well_width):
prob = []
for x1 in x1_values:
for x2 in x2_values:
D = decoherence_functional(x1, x2, t1, t2, mass, well_width)
prob.append(D)
return prob
# Define the initial and final times for the quantum particle
t1 = 0
t2 = 1
# Define the mass and well width for the quantum particle
mass = 1
well_width = 1
# Define the values of x1 and x2 to compute the probabilities for
x1_values = np.linspace(-5, 5, 100)
x2_values = np.linspace(-5, 5, 100)
# Compute the probabilities for the quantum particle in a well
probs = probabilities(x1_values, x2_values, t1, t2, mass, well_width)
Me: Explain Galois theory such that an average physicist can understand it.martinbn said:
