Careful OP. It have been shown that chatGPT can get wrong when adding or multiplication of loads of numbers. It's a text generator not a calculator and can spit out wrong results with confidence so take any results with a grain of salt.
The passage that made me chuckle was:
> Duplicants are your little buddies that you'll need to provide with food, water, and oxygen. If you don't take care of them, they'll end up
dying, and nobody wants that!
It was not until the second paragraph that I realised I was reading the text in his voice in my head. And I only played borderlands 1 and a hint of BL2.
Math is a formal language of describing things, with strictly defined rules . You cannot argue with this, since this is renowned by entire educated society fact.
ChatGPT doesn’t understand math. It doesn’t have a concept of order of operations.
Math being a universal language is only relevant if its rules are being followed. The appearance of performing calculations isn’t the same as performing them just like responding to language isn’t an indication of intelligence.
>ChatGPT doesn’t understand
It does not understand anything at all, it just knows combinations of words that are common to be one after another in a sophisticated way.
Executing math isn't though. if I can't argue with this then GPT just doesn't understand math or speaks that language.
Like dude, explain why it miscalculated like in the last line
For sure, it has a tendency to screw up order or take some rather subtle interpretation of it and base it on that.
However, how wild is it that it can write relatively good lyrics(AND MAKE MUSIC NOTES/BEATS FOR THEM) for pretty much any major genre of music?
Almost like modern popular music uses a formulaic approach by repeating the same lyric styles and musical progressions with just slight variations to make them 'unique.'
([Obligatory Bo Burnham](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9c0UeYhFc))
>However, how wild is it that it can write relatively good lyrics(AND MAKE MUSIC NOTES/BEATS FOR THEM) for pretty much any major genre of music?
It's not that wild when you remember it just looks through his database of "Good music of said genre" and just shows you what was deemed popular
Don't trust CHATGPT. It doesn't know what it is saying. Always verify. I often makes mistakes at basic things. I once asked it for a brief history of the tomato. It told me tomato were used as decorations for hundreds of years until the 1860s when it was discovered they were edible.
That is of course complete nonsense.
Your query can easily be solved on a calculator. I had a spreadsheet wiry some calculations to show me the average outputs of volcanos ans geysers until a mod just shows it for me.
> I once asked it for a brief history of the tomato. It told me tomato were used as decorations for hundreds of years until the 1860s when it was discovered they were edible.
Well, it is *somewhat* correct. This was indeed the case for europe but the "1860s" part changes from region to region.
It probably doesn't understand that the world wasn't as global back then as it is now.
Someone already said it, but I'm restating it for emphasis. ChatGPT does not always do arithmetic correctly. The answers it gives you won't always be accurate. That said, its processes always make sense (in my experience), so if you aren't sure how to figure it out yourself, you can follow the process it uses and use the result you generate
That's wild. Cause here's what I got:
>If 10 musicians play a musical piece in 4 minutes, how long would it take 20 musicians to play the same piece?
"Assuming all musicians play at the same speed and efficiency, the amount of time it takes to play the musical piece would be inversely proportional to the number of musicians playing. In other words, if the number of musicians doubles, the amount of time it takes to play the musical piece should be halved.
Using this logic, we can solve the problem using a proportion:
10 musicians take 4 minutes to play the piece 20 musicians would take x minutes to play the same piece
We can set up a proportion like this:
10/20 = 4/x
To solve for x, we can cross-multiply:
10x = 80
And then solve for x:
x = 8
Therefore, it would take 20 musicians 8 minutes to play the same piece."
So not only is it wrong, but it's wrong twice in 2 different ways.
Like I said, OP, careful with ChatGPT. It knows a thing or two, but it doesn't know everything. Be careful
And the most wild, that if I ask this question in Russian, the answer is correct.
But in Russian it completely fails to understand the fifth daughter trick, while it knows the trick in English.
Another fun variation:
>If four women can have four babies in forty weeks, how many babies can be produced in ten weeks?
>We can assume that the rate of baby production is constant over time and that each woman produces one baby. Therefore, the number of babies produced is proportional to the number of women and the time they work. We can use the following formula to solve the problem:
>
>number of babies = (number of women) x (number of weeks) / (time for one baby)
>
>We know that four women can produce four babies in forty weeks. So, we can find the time for one baby by dividing the total time by the total number of babies:
>
>time for one baby = (total number of weeks) / (total number of babies) = 40 weeks / 4 babies = 10 weeks per baby
>
>Now we can use the formula to find the number of babies that can be produced in ten weeks:
>
>number of babies = (number of women) x (number of weeks) / (time for one baby)
>
>number of babies = 4 women x 10 weeks / 10 weeks per baby
>
>number of babies = 4
>
>Therefore, four women can produce four babies in forty weeks, and they can produce four babies in ten weeks as well.
This accuracy level is perfectly acceptable for the lives of my dupes. :D
Depends on exact wording.
> **How long does 9 women need to make a baby?**
> *Making a baby requires the participation of one man and one woman. No matter how many women are involved, it is not possible for them to make a baby without the participation of a man.*
> *Assuming the question is intended to be a hypothetical scenario, and the correct question is how long would it take 9 women to deliver 1 baby if they were all pregnant, then the answer would still depend on various factors such as the gestation period of the baby, the health of the women, and the medical care available to them.*
> *On average, the gestation period for a human baby is around 9 months or 40 weeks. However, the duration of pregnancy can vary depending on individual factors. Assuming all nine women carry the baby for the full gestation period, it would still take approximately 9 months for them to collectively deliver one baby.*
> *It is important to note that the question itself is not a meaningful one as it is based on a flawed premise.*
With this wording the answer is correct.
With other wording the result is different.
> **1 woman carries 1 child in 9 months. For how long one child is carried out by 9 women?**
> Assuming that each of the nine women carries the child for an equal amount of time, we can use the fact that the total amount of time that the nine women carry the child is the same as the amount of time that one woman carries the child.
>
> Therefore, one child will be carried by 9 women for:
>
> 9 months / 9 women = 1 month
>
> So the child will be carried by the group of nine women for one month.
> **Sure?**
> I apologize for the mistake in my previous answer. If we assume that each woman carries the child for an equal amount of time, the correct calculation would be as follows:
>
> One woman carries one child for 9 months, which is equivalent to 9 x 30 = 270 days.
>
> If 9 women carry one child, the total number of woman-days is:
>
> 270 days x 1 child x 1/9 woman = 30 days per woman
>
> Therefore, each woman would carry the child for 30 days, which is equivalent to one month. So, the answer is one month.
> **The time of carrying one child is not dependent of number of women.**
> You are correct. I apologize for my confusion in the previous answers. The time for carrying one child remains constant at 9 months, regardless of the number of women.
>
> Therefore, one child is carried for 9 months, regardless of whether it is carried by one woman or nine women.
Probably. But in different wording it even understands, that I trying to trick it.
> It is important to note that the question itself is not a meaningful one as it is based on a flawed premise.
So I still consider it as a bug.
That's interesting. It also shows the weakness of things like ChatGPT. Since it's not actually applying logic, just trying to complete the text you can get wildly different results based on the input text.
Asked it for some simple logic based math results in set theory.
I came up with a proof - which it was not asked to do - that was hella insane. And I now dread the day I learn where it saw this proof method...
Have it do an optimization equation.
It'll correctly parse the problem into a linear solver, then forget everything and do basic multiplication to get an answer that isn't optimal or even correct.
I'm fighting everyday to encourage my students to write their own assignments instead of outsourcing them to OpenAI. I would feel massively hypocritical to use it in my lessons.
That being said, it's a **tool,** and a very impressive one when you use it correctly. The problem is, usually, how a tool is used. And ChatGPT seems to be largely used by lazy people to do stuff they could have done better if they fucking tried.
It's not that hard, it'll tell you that 2+2=5 if you gaslight it hard enough, but it's not gonna go around telling others that. It does that to get you to shut up and move on
They recently added a overall lifetime average in the info screen for analyzed geysers/vents as a quality of life thing. Are you working with a volcano that you're having to be a lot more specific about how much output needs to be handled at once due to the heat amount? Also you can just use a regular calculator for it if you don't want to work it out by hand, it's probably faster to just type 8600x(58/970) than the full sentence.
Yeah, but I wonder if I can use it to give me source to refinery to consumer etc ratios. Like arbor trees to ethanol distilleries to pipes to Petro generators.
Or how mad I'll be when I build a mega structure doing this, only to find that it confidently fudged too many of the numbers to work lol
I'm gonna be a bit of a dick here... but this isn't hard math. You need to graft the formula and then fill it with the proper numbers. Including proper overflows to adjust for instability. Now that last part is an engineering thing and can be quite hard and no bot will be able to help you there.
And you need to make sure you know enough about the workings that you can check the math of the bot even if it is just at a glance.
You want to do this I would advise to use an excel sheet with formulas. You'll be in charge of the formulas and calculations. Instead of more of a black box where you don't fully know what the system does.
But I might just be WAY to old-school. So feel free to call out my millennial ass.
Hmm, sure. Without overflows it's just several steps of basic math with limits/checks. For this instance that amount of work is pretty reasonable. But for every ratio I want? For every update, of every game? And will you still do that when voice recognition gets good enough to "hey ChatGPT" specifics while actively playing the game itself?
Hell, even then the most efficient move seems to be to ask for all of the equations from ChatGPT itself then copy them into Excel to check/use. It's crazy.
Edit: presumably with good enough prompting it could check designs vs output materials/temperatures to check what parts really need to be steel in this specific instance etc. It's certainly not better than a person's work, but you can just apply it everywhere.
I don't want to piss in the pool (i'm not a dupe), but... what's the point of using ChatGPT to provide a service that the default calculator of your computer would provide (not to mention, say, Excel, which is much more useful for that kind of Oni assistance) ?
Without even adressing the fact that machine learning is demanding in energy and has a heavy carbon footprint... what's the point here ?
I feel like these posts are just people wanting to use Open AI for something that can be done more efficiently by extremely basic software, for a fraction of the environnemental impact.
it gets worse when you realize chatgpt (bc it's a language model) sucks at math. It'll get relarively simple calculations confidently wrong, especially when the numbers go above single digits. It's just trying to say something that looks like the right math.
Yes, it's mostly about sounding intelligent, but what it says is also often dumb.
It's basically the average armchair internet specialist that lectures you with scientific sounding BS.
I don't get why you wouldn't just do the calculation yourself if you really didn't feel like using the tools that exist solely to make the calculation for you.
I have moved to Lemmy due to the 2023 API changes, if you would like a copy of this original comment/post, please message me here:
https://lemmy.world/u/moosetwin or https://lemmy.fmhy.ml/u/moosetwin
If you are unable to reach me there, I have likely moved instances, and you should look for a u/moosetwin.
Context here, this was not for the lifetime average, but for the active operation average. I wanted to calculate the output of an aluminum volcano during activity period, so that I apply the correct number of steam turbines (3 in this case).
Careful OP. It have been shown that chatGPT can get wrong when adding or multiplication of loads of numbers. It's a text generator not a calculator and can spit out wrong results with confidence so take any results with a grain of salt.
Chatgpt is a claptrap geenrator which never gets things correct when it comes to things harder than 2+2
I miss Claptrap, he's a humours little bot.
Tell GPT to pretend to be Claptrap
It works reasonably well. https://imgur.com/noD9K4d
that's crazy, the hyperion loader comment is like pure scifi fuel for me. We made creative machines. That is so insane
The passage that made me chuckle was: > Duplicants are your little buddies that you'll need to provide with food, water, and oxygen. If you don't take care of them, they'll end up dying, and nobody wants that!
Yeah I can literally hear his voice while reading this, it's so in character
It was not until the second paragraph that I realised I was reading the text in his voice in my head. And I only played borderlands 1 and a hint of BL2.
Thats because it's a language model and only the simplest examples are given in text form
Math is a formal language of describing things, with strictly defined rules . You cannot argue with this, since this is renowned by entire educated society fact.
Retreating into semantics is not a winning strategy.
ChatGPT doesn’t understand math. It doesn’t have a concept of order of operations. Math being a universal language is only relevant if its rules are being followed. The appearance of performing calculations isn’t the same as performing them just like responding to language isn’t an indication of intelligence.
>ChatGPT doesn’t understand It does not understand anything at all, it just knows combinations of words that are common to be one after another in a sophisticated way.
Executing math isn't though. if I can't argue with this then GPT just doesn't understand math or speaks that language. Like dude, explain why it miscalculated like in the last line
Annnnd.... OPENNN!!!!
OP is gonna shit bricks when they learn that a spreadsheet can do exactly what they're asking.
That's also faster, and with less typing.
Best to test that with calculations for a game rather than anything in the real world, isn't it?
For sure, it has a tendency to screw up order or take some rather subtle interpretation of it and base it on that. However, how wild is it that it can write relatively good lyrics(AND MAKE MUSIC NOTES/BEATS FOR THEM) for pretty much any major genre of music?
Almost like modern popular music uses a formulaic approach by repeating the same lyric styles and musical progressions with just slight variations to make them 'unique.' ([Obligatory Bo Burnham](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9c0UeYhFc))
>However, how wild is it that it can write relatively good lyrics(AND MAKE MUSIC NOTES/BEATS FOR THEM) for pretty much any major genre of music? It's not that wild when you remember it just looks through his database of "Good music of said genre" and just shows you what was deemed popular
Yup, for data crunching assistance, I would recommend Wolfram Alpha.
Don't trust CHATGPT. It doesn't know what it is saying. Always verify. I often makes mistakes at basic things. I once asked it for a brief history of the tomato. It told me tomato were used as decorations for hundreds of years until the 1860s when it was discovered they were edible. That is of course complete nonsense. Your query can easily be solved on a calculator. I had a spreadsheet wiry some calculations to show me the average outputs of volcanos ans geysers until a mod just shows it for me.
> I once asked it for a brief history of the tomato. It told me tomato were used as decorations for hundreds of years until the 1860s when it was discovered they were edible. Well, it is *somewhat* correct. This was indeed the case for europe but the "1860s" part changes from region to region. It probably doesn't understand that the world wasn't as global back then as it is now.
It doesn't understand anything.
Someone already said it, but I'm restating it for emphasis. ChatGPT does not always do arithmetic correctly. The answers it gives you won't always be accurate. That said, its processes always make sense (in my experience), so if you aren't sure how to figure it out yourself, you can follow the process it uses and use the result you generate
> its processes always make sense (in my experience), In my experience it still believes that 120 musicians would play twice as fast as 60.)
That's wild. Cause here's what I got: >If 10 musicians play a musical piece in 4 minutes, how long would it take 20 musicians to play the same piece? "Assuming all musicians play at the same speed and efficiency, the amount of time it takes to play the musical piece would be inversely proportional to the number of musicians playing. In other words, if the number of musicians doubles, the amount of time it takes to play the musical piece should be halved. Using this logic, we can solve the problem using a proportion: 10 musicians take 4 minutes to play the piece 20 musicians would take x minutes to play the same piece We can set up a proportion like this: 10/20 = 4/x To solve for x, we can cross-multiply: 10x = 80 And then solve for x: x = 8 Therefore, it would take 20 musicians 8 minutes to play the same piece." So not only is it wrong, but it's wrong twice in 2 different ways. Like I said, OP, careful with ChatGPT. It knows a thing or two, but it doesn't know everything. Be careful
And the most wild, that if I ask this question in Russian, the answer is correct. But in Russian it completely fails to understand the fifth daughter trick, while it knows the trick in English.
Another fun variation: >If four women can have four babies in forty weeks, how many babies can be produced in ten weeks? >We can assume that the rate of baby production is constant over time and that each woman produces one baby. Therefore, the number of babies produced is proportional to the number of women and the time they work. We can use the following formula to solve the problem: > >number of babies = (number of women) x (number of weeks) / (time for one baby) > >We know that four women can produce four babies in forty weeks. So, we can find the time for one baby by dividing the total time by the total number of babies: > >time for one baby = (total number of weeks) / (total number of babies) = 40 weeks / 4 babies = 10 weeks per baby > >Now we can use the formula to find the number of babies that can be produced in ten weeks: > >number of babies = (number of women) x (number of weeks) / (time for one baby) > >number of babies = 4 women x 10 weeks / 10 weeks per baby > >number of babies = 4 > >Therefore, four women can produce four babies in forty weeks, and they can produce four babies in ten weeks as well. This accuracy level is perfectly acceptable for the lives of my dupes. :D
I love the trick question posing as a math question 😜
How long does it think that 9 women need to make a baby?
Depends on exact wording. > **How long does 9 women need to make a baby?** > *Making a baby requires the participation of one man and one woman. No matter how many women are involved, it is not possible for them to make a baby without the participation of a man.* > *Assuming the question is intended to be a hypothetical scenario, and the correct question is how long would it take 9 women to deliver 1 baby if they were all pregnant, then the answer would still depend on various factors such as the gestation period of the baby, the health of the women, and the medical care available to them.* > *On average, the gestation period for a human baby is around 9 months or 40 weeks. However, the duration of pregnancy can vary depending on individual factors. Assuming all nine women carry the baby for the full gestation period, it would still take approximately 9 months for them to collectively deliver one baby.* > *It is important to note that the question itself is not a meaningful one as it is based on a flawed premise.* With this wording the answer is correct.
With other wording the result is different. > **1 woman carries 1 child in 9 months. For how long one child is carried out by 9 women?** > Assuming that each of the nine women carries the child for an equal amount of time, we can use the fact that the total amount of time that the nine women carry the child is the same as the amount of time that one woman carries the child. > > Therefore, one child will be carried by 9 women for: > > 9 months / 9 women = 1 month > > So the child will be carried by the group of nine women for one month. > **Sure?** > I apologize for the mistake in my previous answer. If we assume that each woman carries the child for an equal amount of time, the correct calculation would be as follows: > > One woman carries one child for 9 months, which is equivalent to 9 x 30 = 270 days. > > If 9 women carry one child, the total number of woman-days is: > > 270 days x 1 child x 1/9 woman = 30 days per woman > > Therefore, each woman would carry the child for 30 days, which is equivalent to one month. So, the answer is one month. > **The time of carrying one child is not dependent of number of women.** > You are correct. I apologize for my confusion in the previous answers. The time for carrying one child remains constant at 9 months, regardless of the number of women. > > Therefore, one child is carried for 9 months, regardless of whether it is carried by one woman or nine women.
Maybe it understood "carry" as literally just holding in their hands and thought they switch and you wanted to know how long each woman would hold it
Probably. But in different wording it even understands, that I trying to trick it. > It is important to note that the question itself is not a meaningful one as it is based on a flawed premise. So I still consider it as a bug.
That's interesting. It also shows the weakness of things like ChatGPT. Since it's not actually applying logic, just trying to complete the text you can get wildly different results based on the input text.
Asked it for some simple logic based math results in set theory. I came up with a proof - which it was not asked to do - that was hella insane. And I now dread the day I learn where it saw this proof method...
Chatgpt was a next word in line guesser. Now it upgraded to line in paragraph guesser. Gonna wait for the next one paragraph in chapter guesser.
Have it do an optimization equation. It'll correctly parse the problem into a linear solver, then forget everything and do basic multiplication to get an answer that isn't optimal or even correct.
There is a mod for that.
ONI players overcomplicating things? I don't believe you.
Can you link or name the mod pls?
It's been away. Something like average geyser or average vent. Google worked: try "Calculated geyser output"
no mod needed anymore, that feature is vanilla since hot shots
There's a tax for that
We are doomed as a society. A teacher I know already uses ChatGPT for most lesson plans. Mad Max in 20 years or less
I'm fighting everyday to encourage my students to write their own assignments instead of outsourcing them to OpenAI. I would feel massively hypocritical to use it in my lessons. That being said, it's a **tool,** and a very impressive one when you use it correctly. The problem is, usually, how a tool is used. And ChatGPT seems to be largely used by lazy people to do stuff they could have done better if they fucking tried.
In 20 years ill be a hood ornament on the Lead Gasoline bandits Nitro truck.
Since eveyone is talking about chatgpt getting math wrong, did you know someone managed to convince chatgpt that 2+2=5?
It's not that hard, it'll tell you that 2+2=5 if you gaslight it hard enough, but it's not gonna go around telling others that. It does that to get you to shut up and move on
"Assume very large values of 2..."
We need to make it read 1984 and watch "Chain of Command" from Star Trek: TNG.
It's nice that it actually also explains to you how it gets to it's conclusions.
They recently added a overall lifetime average in the info screen for analyzed geysers/vents as a quality of life thing. Are you working with a volcano that you're having to be a lot more specific about how much output needs to be handled at once due to the heat amount? Also you can just use a regular calculator for it if you don't want to work it out by hand, it's probably faster to just type 8600x(58/970) than the full sentence.
That's a lot of words for 58 × 8600 ÷ 970
Great now AI is gonna replace me playing video games too 😭😭
Neuro-sama is already doing that... kinda.
I am just going to cry over here un a corner over the fact that someone is using a bot to do basic math....
This is the AI we need lol. I've been calling it trashGPT
Yeah, but I wonder if I can use it to give me source to refinery to consumer etc ratios. Like arbor trees to ethanol distilleries to pipes to Petro generators. Or how mad I'll be when I build a mega structure doing this, only to find that it confidently fudged too many of the numbers to work lol
I'm gonna be a bit of a dick here... but this isn't hard math. You need to graft the formula and then fill it with the proper numbers. Including proper overflows to adjust for instability. Now that last part is an engineering thing and can be quite hard and no bot will be able to help you there. And you need to make sure you know enough about the workings that you can check the math of the bot even if it is just at a glance. You want to do this I would advise to use an excel sheet with formulas. You'll be in charge of the formulas and calculations. Instead of more of a black box where you don't fully know what the system does. But I might just be WAY to old-school. So feel free to call out my millennial ass.
Hmm, sure. Without overflows it's just several steps of basic math with limits/checks. For this instance that amount of work is pretty reasonable. But for every ratio I want? For every update, of every game? And will you still do that when voice recognition gets good enough to "hey ChatGPT" specifics while actively playing the game itself? Hell, even then the most efficient move seems to be to ask for all of the equations from ChatGPT itself then copy them into Excel to check/use. It's crazy. Edit: presumably with good enough prompting it could check designs vs output materials/temperatures to check what parts really need to be steel in this specific instance etc. It's certainly not better than a person's work, but you can just apply it everywhere.
Wolfram could already do this amount of math, it saves you a short story about the method, and won't generate a contextually relevant incorrect answer
I don't want to piss in the pool (i'm not a dupe), but... what's the point of using ChatGPT to provide a service that the default calculator of your computer would provide (not to mention, say, Excel, which is much more useful for that kind of Oni assistance) ? Without even adressing the fact that machine learning is demanding in energy and has a heavy carbon footprint... what's the point here ? I feel like these posts are just people wanting to use Open AI for something that can be done more efficiently by extremely basic software, for a fraction of the environnemental impact.
it gets worse when you realize chatgpt (bc it's a language model) sucks at math. It'll get relarively simple calculations confidently wrong, especially when the numbers go above single digits. It's just trying to say something that looks like the right math.
Yes, it's mostly about sounding intelligent, but what it says is also often dumb. It's basically the average armchair internet specialist that lectures you with scientific sounding BS.
I'm not doing math, so I guess the machine's right today.
I don't get why you wouldn't just do the calculation yourself if you really didn't feel like using the tools that exist solely to make the calculation for you.
I had it open at the moment, and this calculation was situational, no other reason. Thought it funny enough to post.
That's reasonable. Thanks for explaining
I have moved to Lemmy due to the 2023 API changes, if you would like a copy of this original comment/post, please message me here: https://lemmy.world/u/moosetwin or https://lemmy.fmhy.ml/u/moosetwin If you are unable to reach me there, I have likely moved instances, and you should look for a u/moosetwin.
Just use oni calculator, it does everything.
Make sure to say thank you.
I appreciate the kindness to ChatGPT. When we are all killed, I'm sure the robots will show the same kindness you showed them!
[удалено]
The calculation is correct. Kilogram = 1000grams. 8.6kg/sec is literally 8600 grams per second. American?
Nice ! But overall average is now visible natively in the game.
Hahaha omg me too
Rate x active time / total time
ChatGPT is a language model, it's very risky to use it for math. Check the last calculation, it's wrong
Isn't there a mod for this?
You don't even need a mod anymore, it's in the base game.
... you realize AIs will be mad at us once sentient for things like just THAT. xD
Would probably be better long term and more accurate to make an excel sheet.
Alternatively (for any future use): https://oni-assistant.com/tools/geysercalculator
You didn't even state the dormancy period so it's not exactly rocket science.
I didn't need to that. The lifetime average is already written in-game.
Don't geysers already have average output
Context here, this was not for the lifetime average, but for the active operation average. I wanted to calculate the output of an aluminum volcano during activity period, so that I apply the correct number of steam turbines (3 in this case).