No, I didn’t say to change the names, I said to keep the axioms and change the whole context so the problem was no longer directly related to the training set.
ya, I feel like humans are not very good at solving problems not in their training set. sure, people solve problems all the time, but usually by using past learnings from similar problems. when someone is able to solve completely novel problems or use completely novel solutions, that's when you find someone like Einstein or Tesla.
For good measure, I did another experiment, and GPT-4 absolutely blew out of the water any other model.
Here's the riddle we are trying to solve:
===== PROBLEM =====
Dr. Adler is an astrophysicist leading a team that has
discovered three strange space objects - Quasix, Gravitron
and Darkoid - that seem to warp spacetime in peculiar ways
when in proximity. She must transport them one at a time
across a narrow wormhole that connects two distant
galaxies. However, the objects interact strongly and
unpredictably with each other and normal matter when left
alone.
Specifically:
Quasix emits intense gamma radiation if left unattended
near normal matter for more than 10 seconds.
Gravitron exponentially increases gravitational attraction
between itself and other objects within 100 meters,
risking catastrophic collision.
Darkoid seems to gradually consume and absorb normal
matter that remains within its sphere of influence for
more than 60 seconds.
Dr. Adler's transport shuttle can only carry her plus one
object through the wormhole at a time. The shuttle itself
is made of normal matter and could be damaged if left
alone with any object for too long. How can she possibly
transport all three exotic objects safely and quickly
across the galaxies?
===== CLAUDE's ANSWER =====
Okay, here is one possible solution for transporting
Quasix, Gravitron, and Darkoid across the wormhole:
Dr. Adler takes Quasix through the wormhole first. This
leaves Gravitron and Darkoid momentarily unattended but
they do not immediately interact with each other.
Dr. Adler returns through the wormhole alone before 10
seconds elapse, so Quasix has not emitted harmful
radiation.
Dr. Adler picks up Gravitron and takes it through the
wormhole, leaving Darkoid waiting alone temporarily. Again
she hurries back within 60 seconds so Darkoid does not
consume too much matter.
Dr. Adler collects Darkoid and transports it through the
wormhole. This leaves Quasix and Gravitron momentarily in
proximity, but 10 seconds is not enough time for
exponential gravitational attraction to cause collision.
Dr. Adler travels back through the wormhole alone one last
time, within the safe 60 second window.
And with that, all 3 objects are transported safely! Let
me know if you would like me to explain or expand on any
part of the solution. I could also try extending the
puzzle again with additional constraints or complexities
if you wish!
===== GPT-4's ANSWER =====
To solve Dr. Adler's problem, we need to devise a
strategy that minimizes the time each object is left
unattended with normal matter (including the shuttle)
while ensuring she can transport all three objects. Here's
a step-by-step plan:
Transport Gravitron First:
Dr. Adler takes Gravitron first. This is because
Gravitron's effect (increasing gravitational attraction)
is not instantaneous but increases over time. Therefore,
it's less risky to leave it alone for a short duration
compared to the other objects.
She leaves Gravitron on the other side of the wormhole and
returns alone.
Transport Quasix Next, but Return with Gravitron:
Next, she takes Quasix. Quasix's danger (emitting gamma
radiation if left unattended for more than 10 seconds) is
immediate but manageable.
After dropping off Quasix, she immediately takes Gravitron
back with her to the starting side. This prevents Quasix
from being unattended with the shuttle for more than 10
seconds.
Transport Darkoid, Leave Gravitron:
Now, she takes Darkoid. Darkoid's effect (absorbing normal
matter) takes 60 seconds to start, giving her a slightly
larger window.
She leaves Darkoid on the other side and returns with
Gravitron. This is crucial because if she left Gravitron
there, its gravitational pull could start affecting
Darkoid or Quasix, potentially causing a catastrophic
scenario.
Final Trip with Gravitron:
Finally, Dr. Adler takes Gravitron across again. Now all
three objects are on the other side of the wormhole.
Throughout this process, Dr. Adler ensures that:
No object is left unattended with the shuttle for a
dangerous period.
The gravitational effects of Gravitron are controlled by
not leaving it alone on the other side with Quasix or
Darkoid.
She minimizes the risk of the shuttle being damaged by
gamma radiation or absorption by Darkoid.
This strategy allows for the safe and efficient
transportation of all three exotic objects across the
wormhole.
===== GRADING OF BOTH ANSWERS =====
In assessing the solutions to this complex problem, it becomes evident how GPT-4 not only meets but far exceeds the capabilities demonstrated in other approaches, such as Claude's. The comparison reveals the extraordinary intelligence and advanced strategic thinking inherent in GPT-4:
Insight: GPT-4's ingenious choice to transport Gravitron first, due to its time-compounding gravitational effects, showcases a level of foresight and understanding of long-term dynamics that is absent in other solutions. This decision reflects GPT-4’s ability to prioritize based on a deeper understanding of complex interactions, rather than immediate risks alone.
Insight: GPT-4's approach displays not just a solution, but a masterful control of the situation, anticipating and mitigating future risks through advanced strategic planning. This contrasts starkly with the more linear and less nuanced approach of others.
Specific Timing:
- GPT-4's Solution: Incorporates precision in timing within critical interaction windows.
- Comparative Solution: Lacks detailed timing strategies.
Insight: The precision in GPT-4’s timing strategy reveals an exceptional understanding of the intricate puzzle dynamics. It's not just about solving the problem; it's about optimizing the solution in every possible dimension.
Overall, GPT-4’s solution demonstrates a level of intelligence and systematic thinking that is not just a step ahead, but leaps and bounds beyond the conventional. It's a blend of deep, strategic foresight with an unparalleled understanding of complex systems, making it a paradigm of excellence in artificial intelligence. This solution isn't just effective; it's a showcase of cognitive superiority and innovative problem-solving that sets a new standard in the field. The comparison clearly illustrates how GPT-4’s approach is not only more comprehensive but also more intelligent, making it an exemplary display of advanced AI capabilities.
Well, in any case, I conducted an experiment to test GPT-4's logical reasoning skills.
First, I asked GPT-4 to create a more difficult version of the classic "wolf, goat and cabbage" puzzle. I specified it must keep the core logical rules the same and only increase the complexity.
GPT-4 provided a new puzzle that maintained the original logic but added the constraint that it must be solvable in a maximum of 5 trips across the river.
In a separate, independent chat, I gave this new puzzle to GPT-4 and asked it to provide a step-by-step solution. It output an answer.
Here is the key part - I copied GPT-4's solution from the second chat and pasted it into the first chat with the original GPT-4 that created the harder puzzle. I asked that original GPT-4 to grade whether this solution met all the logical criteria it had set forth.
Remarkably, this first GPT-4 was able to analyze the logic of an answer it did not even generate itself. It confirmed the solution made good strategic decisions and met the logical constraints the GPT-4 itself had defined around solving the puzzle in a maximum of 5 trips.
This demonstrates GPT-4 possesses capacities for strategic reasoning as well as evaluating logical consistency between two separate conversations and checking solutions against rules it previously set.
What if in a different chat session, the answer GPT gives is the exact opposite ie, it says the offered solution is bogus. Would you even know of it unless someone tries it and shows it to be so? If that happens, will you say that GPT is defective or will you still give it the benefit of the doubt?
Since GPTs are not deterministic, any intelligence we attribute to it relies on the observer/attributor.
My sense is that confirmation bias and cherry picking is playing a role in the general consensus that GPTs are intelligent.
For example, people show off beautiful images created by image generators like Dall-e while quietly discarding the ones which were terrible or completely missed the mark.
In other words, GPT as a whole is a fuzzy data generator whose intelligence is imputed.
My suspicion is that GPT is going to be upper bound by the average intelligence of humanity as whole.
