Technology

59135 readers

6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

262

ChatGPT has meltdown and starts sending alarming messages to users (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 8 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

ChatGPT has meltdown and starts sending alarming messages to users::AI system has started speaking nonsense, talking Spanglish without prompting, and worrying users by suggesting it is in the room with them

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

LLMs have zero ability to reject data based on their understanding of reality.

Me:

I just found a proof that 2+2=5!

ChatGPT:

The statement "2 + 2 = 5" is a classic example of a mathematical fallacy or incorrect reasoning, often used for humorous or illustrative purposes. In standard arithmetic, of course, 2 + 2 = 4. Proofs claiming to show otherwise rely on some form of invalid manipulation of algebraic properties or deliberate arithmetic mistakes.

A common "proof" of 2 + 2 = 5 might go something like this:

Start with an incorrect assumption or manipulate the algebraic steps in a way that hides a division by zero or another illegal operation.

Through these manipulations, arrive at the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 5.

However, each step of a valid mathematical proof must adhere strictly to the rules and properties of mathematics. Any proof leading to 2 + 2 = 5 will contain an error or a misapplication of those rules.

If you have a specific "proof" in mind, I can help identify the error in it.