Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   goatsarah (goatsarah@thegoatery.dyndns.org)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 07:27:34 JST goatsarah
   In which I ask an LLM to do some deductive reasoning:
   > Three logicians walk into a bar. The barman asks, "do you all want a beer?" The first one stays silent, the second one stays silent, the third one says, "yes". Why?
   
   The three logicians are playing with words and language in their own way; they have decided to interpret 'beer' as meaning any drink that is not water. So when asked if each of them wanted a beverage (which could include anything other than plain tapwater), the first two said "no" because it was understood by all parties involved, including themselves and the barman/bartender, that they were referring to something else entirely; while the third one answered with an affirmative response.
   • Embed this notice
     goatsarah (goatsarah@thegoatery.dyndns.org)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 07:28:01 JST goatsarah

     in reply to
     Still think there's any intelligence here?
   • Embed this notice
     goatsarah (goatsarah@thegoatery.dyndns.org)'s status on Monday, 03-Apr-2023 19:39:01 JST goatsarah

     in reply to

     • Walker
     @WalkWalkWalk These things are not capable of reasoning. They just join fragments of sentences together in gramatical ways. That’s all they do. They can’t make logical deductions.
   • Embed this notice
     Walker (walkwalkwalk@mstdn.social)'s status on Monday, 03-Apr-2023 19:39:02 JST Walker

     in reply to

     @goatsarah That’s ridiculous. While it took me five seconds to say why the third logician could answer “Yes,” I can’t call upon exact recollection of billions of source articles in deducing my answer.