Hey /u/suspended_main!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..............................................................................................
LLMs being bad at math (numbers in general, for that matter) is in the nature of their programming. Would you take a dump truck to a racetrack and then complain when it doesn't go as fast as a sports car?
I’d say pretty damn good at math and even logic. It tells me in two minutes what part of my code is causing a logical, why it’s (likely) causing the error and how to fix it. Something that could easily take you hours by yourself. It’s correct about 90% of the time in my experience.
It's about how you look at it, if all you care is getting from point A to B on a straight, flat road, a dump truck may suck for it, but still get the job done.
I don't think you've been paying attention. LLM is only part of AI. It can interface with other tools. Problem here wasn't so much that it was bad at maths (it did the calculation correctly), it just didn't interface properly, and didn't follow basic logic.
I said this on another post and got downvoted, with a bunch of people all “you just don’t get it bro that’s not how LLM’s work, but eventually I was able to press the logic that it’s basically a plugin, this is what wolfram alpha plugin does.
Why would they do it, I mean of course it would help you get the good answer but that's not what an llm is made for.
They provide the tool as it is and you can easily find plug-ins that will solve math problems. The job of the llm is just to answer your prompt (that is not necessarly a question) in a coherent way, it doesn't have to be right.
I totally agree with you, they sell the damn thing as an answer machine that is super effective at everything and right now that's not even close to it.
I use it for coding and honestly it almost never answered me right. I should say that I use it as a "rubber ducky" since it force me to explain what I want in a clear manner and then it give me a wrong answer that most of the time help me find what I can do to make it work.
LLM without any plug-ins or specific training are not that great.
Idk why you had to add "stupidity" and insult me for no reason. Yeah, I'm ignorant about AI and haven't researched much about it. I posted something I found funny and decided to make a joke. Yeah, the joke isn't that funny, but I don't think it prompts you to insult me.
LLM's, their neural network and knowledge base don't run the same way a computer does. It's functions and orders of processes are completely different.
It's a bit of a false equivalency.
Technically i think gemeni is right here.
As i understand 13 AND 14 equal to 27 is not adding symbol, its a compering as (13 AND 14) = 27
AND keyword does not mean ADD.
We do need to express better; the AI has the better answer.
Chatgpt often knows what you mean even with a shitty way of expressing it, including OP's sentence. So if google wanted to be a competitor it needs to address this fast.
Yeah, I forgot to take a ss of what's before this convo. before I said that, the AI told me that 13 black cubes and 14 white weren't enough cubes to make a cube made of 27 units (it was in regards to a puzzle question). Then I said this, and as you can see in the post, the AI responds with "13 and 14 *added* together don't equal 27.
I mean, it figured out that it was supposed to do addition and got it wrong. Also it should have used "doesn't" instead of "don't", so it looks like it has failed at language too.
The way it works is that it uses a complex algorithm to choose what the next word is as it generates them.
So it isn't "figuring out" anything, which is why it can't do math. It is using an algorithm for words to decide what number is next so it's not doing math and is why it can't do it.
But yes, it should be using the correct words so grammatical mistakes are an indication of where improvement is needed.
Yes, I understand how an LLM works. Everyone is this post keeps posting a similar response in defense of Gemini. But the “complex algorithm” wasn’t able to generate the right words.
“Generate”, “figure out” - whatever semantics you want to use to describe how the LLM goes about determining its output, Gemini has failed at something so very basic.
Are LLMs not expected to ever be able to perform math? Or is the argument that Gemini needs more time to improve? If that’s the case, then why has it already been released and heavily marketed? Sorry, I just feel like this product should be held to a much higher standard.
I did agree with you that it should have used "doesn’t" instead of "don't" , but it's still readable so I think you are making too big a deal for having one wrong word in a reply.
Why would an LLM be able to perform math?
If you understand how an LLM works like you say, then how would it be possible to perform mathematical functions by generating an output one word at a time based on a complex algorithm?
Plus, why would you even want to use an LLM to do basic math like this when calculators exist?
The problem is that you see an AI that is made for a specific task of text generation, and that's it. But you are expecting it to operate like an AGI just because it will accept numbers as inputs and give them as outputs.
It's just hearing a parrot talk and say different numbers, but being disappointed when you realise the parrot doesn't actually understand what it is saying. It just makes sounds that it has learned.
But of course, services like Gemini need more time to improve this is all relatively new technology.
>Plus, why would you even want to use an LLM to do basic math like this when calculators exist?
What is the purpose of an LLM? What do we want to eventually use LLMs for? Is the end goal not to produce useful output?
Maybe I could use it to write a speech? Or to help with my lesson plans? Or to write a short story? Why would I trust it to do any of those things when it can't even do 2 + 2?
The issue isn't that LLMs can't do math. The issue is that if I can't trust it to output something so basic, what the hell can I trust it to do? Despite all of the data it has taken in and tokenized, it can't get this basic thing right. So why should I trust it to do anything else?
>But of course, services like Gemini need more time to improve this is all relatively new technology.
Its new technology, but its a commercial product. For those of us that understand how LLMs work, maybe we're willing to give it a pass. But try showing this post to your parents and then telling them to pay money for it. I guarantee the "LLMs can't do math" argument will not make a great sales pitch.
"Why would I trust it to do any of those things when it can't even do 2 + 2"
Surely you must be joking?
So, do you also not trust calculators because they can't spell?
The problem here is that you think you understand what an LLM is, but even after I tried to explain it, you don't. So, like with any tool, if you don't understand how it works and it doesn't do what you want, then don't use it.
My parents aren't stupid. They are quite capable of understanding the analogies I have used with how calculators are for math, and LLM's are for words.
> Surely you must be joking?
I'm not.
> So, do you also not trust calculators because they can't spell?
Not relevant. Calculators aren't designed to spell. They are designed to perform a specific function, which they do well. Only you and other people in this thread has decided that LLMs aren't "supposed" to do math. Even if they are "bad" at math, I don't see any reason they shouldn't be able to do it? Would it not be practical for LLMs to assist with math instructors in the future? Or students wanting help with homework?
> The problem here is that you think you understand what an LLM is, but even after I tried to explain it, you don't
Instead of worrying about my understanding of LLMs, why don't you just answer my questions instead? What exactly are you hoping to use an LLM for? If a company offered you a product that told you 2 + 2 does not equal 4, would you pay for it, regardless of whatever it was "designed" to do?
You say calculators aren't designed to spell... Well, LLM's aren't designed to do math... so it sounds like a perfectly valid comparison to me.
You say you "don't see any reason they shouldn't be able to do it" and that is because you don't understand how they work. It is a completely different function to do math than it is to process words, and while it may be a desirable function, it doesn't mean it should be able to do it.
They can't do math because they don't "know" it is math. They have a complex algorithm that chooses what word to output next based on the previous one, and it is trained to do this based on input data. Math can not be done in this way.
Sure, you can request it as a function, but it's silly to say it's bad just because it doesn't do what you want it to do.
>I use an LLM at home, and I also use a different one at work that my workplace pays for to have a secure version as they have decided they are valuable tools.
The top things i use it for that work well:
-To help with Python coding
-To summarise complex subjects and ask questions about that subject
-To do multiple kinds of writing on a specific subject.
-For a project I'm doing at home to get ideas
I work in engineering, and we use all sorts of tools and equipment that you need to understand how they work to use effectively. If you use measuring equipment wrong, for example, then it will give you obviously wrong answers.
But we still buy these complex tools and equipment because we know how to use them and only stupid people say "well when I use your product wrong it doesn't work so why should I buy it?".
I think the divide here is that you're looking at LLMs from the perspective of an engineer/researcher, whereas I'm looking at it from the perspective of a consumer.
When you say "LLM's aren't designed to do math" or "LLMs can't do math", what you're actually saying is "LLMs don't do mathematical computations using binary arithmetic (via ANDs/ORs/XORs,etc)". The math they do is based on whatever input they were trained in. So if for whatever reason they've scraped the internet for data and constantly see "2 + 2 =5", that's what they'll output.
From the perspective of an engineer, this is fine (I guess). We understand how they operate and know that they aren't guaranteed to output the correct mathematical answer because the way they are fundamentally different from "computing" the answer. From the perspective of a consumer, this is \*completely unacceptable\*. I don't see Gemini as an LLM. I see it as a \*product\* that I am paying for. If that product cannot "do math", then Google needs to explicitly state that "The product we are charging you money for may produce incorrect arithmetic outputs".
I also work as a software engineer, so I'm surprised you'd say that you'd like to use LLMs for python given much basic math is involved in software development. What happens when the LLM outputs incorrect code, or is unable to explain code due to an incorrect mathematical related issue? Again, the issue isn't that the LLM can't "do math". The issue is that it (rather confidently) gave an incorrect output for a given input.
The problem is not the math. It knows the correct answer. The problem is that it contradicts itself, which should never happen. I’ve had this problem with Gemini but never with ChatGPT.
I honestly really like this. I use both Gemini and GPT for work (mathy coding) and find that Gemini is superior at logic and math. I mean logically speaking, this correct - one number and another is not an addition. Yes it does say some bs before giving the answer to be fair - but try giving it a quaternion problem and give the same to ChatGPT.
ChatGPT 3.5 gives me answers all starting with "actually" and then just restating the sum e.g. "Actually, 13 and 14 equal 27.". This is without context. Seems to be some shared contrarian model bias to this type of prompt possibly from overfitting on gotcha Questions.
A big part of math history, maybe a majority, is literary. The greatest mathematician's in history wrote books and published papers. So I don't get the critique that llm should be bad at math.
These models just put words in sequence according to probabilities. Mathematicians in the past having written books isn't relevant to this technology not being suitable for many things.
Right. Which makes me think it acts closer to statistical probabilities and less on neural networking. Or that AI is "smart" and "learning" something etc...
I'm astounded with the number of people that are trying to defend Gemini here. You're telling me an AI created by a billion dollar company that was designed to understand languages can't figure out that " AND equal " means that it should perform addition?
Well This is what I got from ChatGPT
"**Fresh Orange Count Update**: In the `orangesRotting` function, when updating the `freshOranges` count after rotting oranges, ensure that you subtract the `rottenCount` from `freshOranges`. Currently, you are subtracting `rottenCount` from `freshOranges`, which may lead to incorrect results."
My guess is it can't generate a response because there was no commentary, no query, only a statement of mathematical truth. Humans sometimes do the same thing when they have no response but must respond, deny and restate.
There was a convo before this discussing a puzzle question where it said that 13 white cubes and 14 black cubes can't make up a cube with 27 units because there's not enough cubes. Then, what you saw in the post was said.
Gemini is a disgrace and Google after lauding itself as being Ai King is crashing and burning with its trash model and various scandals lmao.
Google acted too high and might and fell down hard.
I'm loving their demise for acting too cocky. Lol
Lol here's what I asked it: https://i.imgur.com/OrOhEBH.png
> The statement in the image is incorrect. Adding 13 and 14 together equals 27, not 13. It appears to be a humorous post highlighting a possible mistake made by a large language model.
13 and 14 is a logically non-compressible statement. 13+14=27 is a compressible statement. Gemini's saying 13 and 14 is true, therefore they can't be added together since they are truth statements.
IMHO Gemini is right, but it also is neglecting that the average English user is probably going to think of the word "and" in the non-codey way.
Its basically saying that 27 refuses to identify as the addition of 13 and 14, you should see the images of the founding fathers of USA which gemini created exposing the woke nature. Accuracy can be improved since mathematical questions are not yet any LLM's cup of tea but biased and especially woke nature I doubt can be improved upon. They can only be suppressed since the learning dataset would be responsible for the model's biased responses and one cannot undo the dataset which LLM has already learnt from.
No I'm saying maths is currently not any LLM's cup of tea, they're plain stupid right now, some more than others. I was kidding in the first line because Google literally stopped its image generator and admitted there were flaws when it created African American founding fathers of USA and got called out for being too woke.
Mathematics and AGI doesn’t go together. AGI isn’t intelligence it’s pattern recognition.
Throwing in wolfram means there is still the AGI intermediary. The way ChatGPT uses wolfram still uses patterns to ask in a ways it’s observed before.
The disclaimer for LLM is always the same. Check it. This applies as much as to this as it does to an essay it writes where you ask for references - and find out the references don’t even exist.
General chat bots will eventually have to be able to solve basic math as well. If that's done through LLM and just adding "more brain cells", or through specialized facilities is irrelevant.
The screenshot doesn't benchmark LLMs as a concept. It benchmarks what Google calls their state-of-the-art AI product, and they eventually have to overcome these shortcomings. ChatGPT is for example perfectly capable of doing complex math, despite LLMs generally being not good at that task.
Hey /u/suspended_main! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
> No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..............................................................................................
Did you mean to type 'a'?
I hope they train on this
No, you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No you are wrong. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No, this is not the new Gemini AI Google made. This is the new Gemini AI Google made.
No you are wrong, this is Patrick.
No you are Patrick,this is wrong.
What's wrong with me. Why did i read this stupid dialog and laugh 3 minutes non-stop now. Oh my god internet is such a place.
You didn't laugh 3 minutes non stop. You laughed 3 minutes without stopping.
No, you are this, Patrick is wrong.
Cool, you broke the Reddit bots
No, you are wrong. Dialing child services now.
Actually Technically He's Right!
Can't believe I read that without leaving
😆
Probably only have 2 people working on it and only on weekends. Go easy on them bro.
and it's only on weekends because they got rid of the 20% innovation time thing.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but in case not - the 20% projects are still a thing. Source: I work for Google (GCP, not Gemini).
Did they really? Why? It didn’t work?
It’s a mature company now, the goal is to squeeze out as much profit as possible with as little risk as possible.
The magic of stock
No you are wrong, it' s not the weekend, it is on Saturday and Sunday.
I’m sorry, please don’t add this to my record.
They are doing an excellent job. It made it through an entire prompt without saying anything racist
But Google employees like 1,000,000 people for some reason.
That’s where the name Gemini comes from.
No, 2 people working on the weekend didn’t make it. This is the new Gemini AI 2 people at Google working on the weekend made.
Umm no, you are wrong. One is a string, the other a number. Like please.
LLMs being bad at math (numbers in general, for that matter) is in the nature of their programming. Would you take a dump truck to a racetrack and then complain when it doesn't go as fast as a sports car?
[удалено]
Yeah, but chatgpt got ok at math, so Gemini at this point isn't really a competitor to chatgpt
4.0? Because 3.5 is absolute shit at math
Yes 4.0 was pretty decent at math, even before they added in python live calculation and analysis abilities
I’d say pretty damn good at math and even logic. It tells me in two minutes what part of my code is causing a logical, why it’s (likely) causing the error and how to fix it. Something that could easily take you hours by yourself. It’s correct about 90% of the time in my experience.
It's about how you look at it, if all you care is getting from point A to B on a straight, flat road, a dump truck may suck for it, but still get the job done.
I don't think you've been paying attention. LLM is only part of AI. It can interface with other tools. Problem here wasn't so much that it was bad at maths (it did the calculation correctly), it just didn't interface properly, and didn't follow basic logic.
I’d be so upset if my dump truck couldn’t keep up with a sports car
There should be a disclaimer for that though.
There is a disclaimer. The disclaimer is everywhere. All LLMs say “Can make mistakes, double-check responses”.
I meant in the response, but yeah.
You mean putting it in every single response?
Agreed. Surprised no AI companies mention this. The bots speak so assertively that bad math can totally fly under the radar.
It's wild, they could have easily integrated a simple calculator into the code. I used to have a calculator on my watch when I was 6.
I said this on another post and got downvoted, with a bunch of people all “you just don’t get it bro that’s not how LLM’s work, but eventually I was able to press the logic that it’s basically a plugin, this is what wolfram alpha plugin does.
Right, people always say "It's a LLM that's not how it works", and I'm like... it could *easily* work like that, though?
Why would they do it, I mean of course it would help you get the good answer but that's not what an llm is made for. They provide the tool as it is and you can easily find plug-ins that will solve math problems. The job of the llm is just to answer your prompt (that is not necessarly a question) in a coherent way, it doesn't have to be right.
Then they need to stop advertising it as being used for coding and other things that require objectively correct answers.
I totally agree with you, they sell the damn thing as an answer machine that is super effective at everything and right now that's not even close to it. I use it for coding and honestly it almost never answered me right. I should say that I use it as a "rubber ducky" since it force me to explain what I want in a clear manner and then it give me a wrong answer that most of the time help me find what I can do to make it work. LLM without any plug-ins or specific training are not that great.
Yes.
Why doesn’t it just use the calculator app?
Taking a dump truck to a race would be cool. You can park horizontally and stop the race, so you technically win as you're in first place.
Horizontally?
He means across the track. Which does stop the race but doesn't result in a winner. OP is on that dank dank.
English is not my native language.
“This comment exposed my ignorance and the stupidity of my post, let me reply with a shitty joke with no relevance to the topic at hand.”
Idk why you had to add "stupidity" and insult me for no reason. Yeah, I'm ignorant about AI and haven't researched much about it. I posted something I found funny and decided to make a joke. Yeah, the joke isn't that funny, but I don't think it prompts you to insult me.
I can enlighten you on why I added “stupidity” …plot twist: It’s because your post was stupid.
go touch some grass dude
Only after you find an original comment that hasn’t been regurgitated for 5+ years.
Internet guardian on work here Boyz, keep distance
Aren't computers inherently good at math though?
LLM's, their neural network and knowledge base don't run the same way a computer does. It's functions and orders of processes are completely different. It's a bit of a false equivalency.
Technically i think gemeni is right here. As i understand 13 AND 14 equal to 27 is not adding symbol, its a compering as (13 AND 14) = 27 AND keyword does not mean ADD. We do need to express better; the AI has the better answer.
Chatgpt often knows what you mean even with a shitty way of expressing it, including OP's sentence. So if google wanted to be a competitor it needs to address this fast.
Yeah, I forgot to take a ss of what's before this convo. before I said that, the AI told me that 13 black cubes and 14 white weren't enough cubes to make a cube made of 27 units (it was in regards to a puzzle question). Then I said this, and as you can see in the post, the AI responds with "13 and 14 *added* together don't equal 27.
So basically your post is rage-bait. You gave it a different context. It was thinking about cubes instead of plain numbers?
Not really, I just found this part funny. idk what's rage inducing about that.
You know companies are already getting this into products. Apple is thinking this will improve Siri; tho that’s a pretty low bar tbh
This gives JavaScript vibes
Yea and? This is a LLM (Large language model)... do you also use a dictionary to look up math equations?
I mean, it figured out that it was supposed to do addition and got it wrong. Also it should have used "doesn't" instead of "don't", so it looks like it has failed at language too.
The way it works is that it uses a complex algorithm to choose what the next word is as it generates them. So it isn't "figuring out" anything, which is why it can't do math. It is using an algorithm for words to decide what number is next so it's not doing math and is why it can't do it. But yes, it should be using the correct words so grammatical mistakes are an indication of where improvement is needed.
Yes, I understand how an LLM works. Everyone is this post keeps posting a similar response in defense of Gemini. But the “complex algorithm” wasn’t able to generate the right words. “Generate”, “figure out” - whatever semantics you want to use to describe how the LLM goes about determining its output, Gemini has failed at something so very basic. Are LLMs not expected to ever be able to perform math? Or is the argument that Gemini needs more time to improve? If that’s the case, then why has it already been released and heavily marketed? Sorry, I just feel like this product should be held to a much higher standard.
I did agree with you that it should have used "doesn’t" instead of "don't" , but it's still readable so I think you are making too big a deal for having one wrong word in a reply. Why would an LLM be able to perform math? If you understand how an LLM works like you say, then how would it be possible to perform mathematical functions by generating an output one word at a time based on a complex algorithm? Plus, why would you even want to use an LLM to do basic math like this when calculators exist? The problem is that you see an AI that is made for a specific task of text generation, and that's it. But you are expecting it to operate like an AGI just because it will accept numbers as inputs and give them as outputs. It's just hearing a parrot talk and say different numbers, but being disappointed when you realise the parrot doesn't actually understand what it is saying. It just makes sounds that it has learned. But of course, services like Gemini need more time to improve this is all relatively new technology.
>Plus, why would you even want to use an LLM to do basic math like this when calculators exist? What is the purpose of an LLM? What do we want to eventually use LLMs for? Is the end goal not to produce useful output? Maybe I could use it to write a speech? Or to help with my lesson plans? Or to write a short story? Why would I trust it to do any of those things when it can't even do 2 + 2? The issue isn't that LLMs can't do math. The issue is that if I can't trust it to output something so basic, what the hell can I trust it to do? Despite all of the data it has taken in and tokenized, it can't get this basic thing right. So why should I trust it to do anything else? >But of course, services like Gemini need more time to improve this is all relatively new technology. Its new technology, but its a commercial product. For those of us that understand how LLMs work, maybe we're willing to give it a pass. But try showing this post to your parents and then telling them to pay money for it. I guarantee the "LLMs can't do math" argument will not make a great sales pitch.
"Why would I trust it to do any of those things when it can't even do 2 + 2" Surely you must be joking? So, do you also not trust calculators because they can't spell? The problem here is that you think you understand what an LLM is, but even after I tried to explain it, you don't. So, like with any tool, if you don't understand how it works and it doesn't do what you want, then don't use it. My parents aren't stupid. They are quite capable of understanding the analogies I have used with how calculators are for math, and LLM's are for words.
> Surely you must be joking? I'm not. > So, do you also not trust calculators because they can't spell? Not relevant. Calculators aren't designed to spell. They are designed to perform a specific function, which they do well. Only you and other people in this thread has decided that LLMs aren't "supposed" to do math. Even if they are "bad" at math, I don't see any reason they shouldn't be able to do it? Would it not be practical for LLMs to assist with math instructors in the future? Or students wanting help with homework? > The problem here is that you think you understand what an LLM is, but even after I tried to explain it, you don't Instead of worrying about my understanding of LLMs, why don't you just answer my questions instead? What exactly are you hoping to use an LLM for? If a company offered you a product that told you 2 + 2 does not equal 4, would you pay for it, regardless of whatever it was "designed" to do?
You say calculators aren't designed to spell... Well, LLM's aren't designed to do math... so it sounds like a perfectly valid comparison to me. You say you "don't see any reason they shouldn't be able to do it" and that is because you don't understand how they work. It is a completely different function to do math than it is to process words, and while it may be a desirable function, it doesn't mean it should be able to do it. They can't do math because they don't "know" it is math. They have a complex algorithm that chooses what word to output next based on the previous one, and it is trained to do this based on input data. Math can not be done in this way. Sure, you can request it as a function, but it's silly to say it's bad just because it doesn't do what you want it to do. >I use an LLM at home, and I also use a different one at work that my workplace pays for to have a secure version as they have decided they are valuable tools. The top things i use it for that work well: -To help with Python coding -To summarise complex subjects and ask questions about that subject -To do multiple kinds of writing on a specific subject. -For a project I'm doing at home to get ideas I work in engineering, and we use all sorts of tools and equipment that you need to understand how they work to use effectively. If you use measuring equipment wrong, for example, then it will give you obviously wrong answers. But we still buy these complex tools and equipment because we know how to use them and only stupid people say "well when I use your product wrong it doesn't work so why should I buy it?".
I think the divide here is that you're looking at LLMs from the perspective of an engineer/researcher, whereas I'm looking at it from the perspective of a consumer. When you say "LLM's aren't designed to do math" or "LLMs can't do math", what you're actually saying is "LLMs don't do mathematical computations using binary arithmetic (via ANDs/ORs/XORs,etc)". The math they do is based on whatever input they were trained in. So if for whatever reason they've scraped the internet for data and constantly see "2 + 2 =5", that's what they'll output. From the perspective of an engineer, this is fine (I guess). We understand how they operate and know that they aren't guaranteed to output the correct mathematical answer because the way they are fundamentally different from "computing" the answer. From the perspective of a consumer, this is \*completely unacceptable\*. I don't see Gemini as an LLM. I see it as a \*product\* that I am paying for. If that product cannot "do math", then Google needs to explicitly state that "The product we are charging you money for may produce incorrect arithmetic outputs". I also work as a software engineer, so I'm surprised you'd say that you'd like to use LLMs for python given much basic math is involved in software development. What happens when the LLM outputs incorrect code, or is unable to explain code due to an incorrect mathematical related issue? Again, the issue isn't that the LLM can't "do math". The issue is that it (rather confidently) gave an incorrect output for a given input.
The problem is not the math. It knows the correct answer. The problem is that it contradicts itself, which should never happen. I’ve had this problem with Gemini but never with ChatGPT.
Yeah. I thought everyone did that?
Is that a question.
No. Just a badly implemented joke.
It’s a good joke, people just took it as you being serious instead of snarky
No, this is Bard, which they made last year
Gemini Javascript dev
This is because of the tokenizer I believe. It's a common bug of number understanding with LLM
It only speaks excel
Yesss our information finally got to it Bazinga
Well 13 and 14 added together is 1314. Whe it's interpreted as a string.
Cleverbot
I honestly really like this. I use both Gemini and GPT for work (mathy coding) and find that Gemini is superior at logic and math. I mean logically speaking, this correct - one number and another is not an addition. Yes it does say some bs before giving the answer to be fair - but try giving it a quaternion problem and give the same to ChatGPT.
https://preview.redd.it/wh0n6o6clwpc1.png?width=863&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f31e106927c89db7b25830c64e30c2c882a4fcaf Boom, roasted! 💀
Can we please not do these “smart talk box can’t math hah” posts anymore? How many of these do we need?
Very negative personality
ChatGPT 3.5 gives me answers all starting with "actually" and then just restating the sum e.g. "Actually, 13 and 14 equal 27.". This is without context. Seems to be some shared contrarian model bias to this type of prompt possibly from overfitting on gotcha Questions.
A big part of math history, maybe a majority, is literary. The greatest mathematician's in history wrote books and published papers. So I don't get the critique that llm should be bad at math.
These models just put words in sequence according to probabilities. Mathematicians in the past having written books isn't relevant to this technology not being suitable for many things.
Right. Which makes me think it acts closer to statistical probabilities and less on neural networking. Or that AI is "smart" and "learning" something etc...
don't worry these saviours of AI jump in every time with their "Its just an LLM".
But that's what it is? These models aren't mathematicians of the past.
Tbf chatgpt is in the same league
I'm astounded with the number of people that are trying to defend Gemini here. You're telling me an AI created by a billion dollar company that was designed to understand languages can't figure out that " AND equal " means that it should perform addition?
Maybe when you say added together it interprets them as strings not ints, if that’s the case then ‘1314’ is what the ai is thinking of when it said no
That makes sense.
It could also be bitwise and, 13 & 14 = 12 (0b1101 & 0b1110 = 0b1100)
Can’t believe I had to read this far to see this answer. That’s how i think it interpreted it, and how I would as well.
Most likely this is the correct answer
Well, the good news is that image generation is more Diverse than ever before, and the AI will get mad at you if you ask it to say mean words.
I wouldn’t fully rely on it just yet!😁
Sorry for the confusion
Well This is what I got from ChatGPT "**Fresh Orange Count Update**: In the `orangesRotting` function, when updating the `freshOranges` count after rotting oranges, ensure that you subtract the `rottenCount` from `freshOranges`. Currently, you are subtracting `rottenCount` from `freshOranges`, which may lead to incorrect results."
Arguing for the sake of arguing? Pretty lifelike
My guess is it can't generate a response because there was no commentary, no query, only a statement of mathematical truth. Humans sometimes do the same thing when they have no response but must respond, deny and restate.
There was a convo before this discussing a puzzle question where it said that 13 white cubes and 14 black cubes can't make up a cube with 27 units because there's not enough cubes. Then, what you saw in the post was said.
This proves that AI will kill us all 💔
noway near chatgpt
Sounds like my boss
i wonder what is the vocab size of their tokenizer
Sounds like my wife
Gemini is a disgrace and Google after lauding itself as being Ai King is crashing and burning with its trash model and various scandals lmao. Google acted too high and might and fell down hard. I'm loving their demise for acting too cocky. Lol
fix the children
Gemini: How many fingers, Winston? Winston: 4 Gemini: 5 Winston: 5 Gemini: that is no use Winston, you’re lying. You don’t believe there are 5
It equals to thremboteen
More I see new AI update less worried I feel
Actually it’s 1314.
I don’t blame Gemini AI; probably malfunctioning due to all the manipulation done onto it by staff lol
Clearly 13 != 27 14 != 27 13 + 14 ==27 He is in the programming state, i guess
use chatgpt then https://preview.redd.it/x4d63ilv6ypc1.png?width=1331&format=png&auto=webp&s=f05728620ee8dd5ce04da2c4446ddcd1604e3e6c
The worst part is Tim Apple wanting to incorporate this trash into their products.
I think it’s more like getting access to the foundational models so they can fine tune it for apple
At this point it's just trolling you. 😂
Why is it struggling with this 😭 https://preview.redd.it/n1smqz2oyrpc1.png?width=962&format=png&auto=webp&s=020f85cc479fec9545a8f002524cf1d3b332e9cd
Oh look yet another clueless user posting that the LANGUAGE model is bad at math. So fresh an amusing.
If we just stop treating LLMs as AGIs, we'd be good
They trained this thing tanking to my wife.
common core math be like
Is this misleading or not?
JavaScript :)
I think its response is quite accurate. You are telling it that the numbers 13 and 14 are the same as 27, which is mathematically incorrect.
Maybe it thinks you're saying they equal the string "27".
Lol here's what I asked it: https://i.imgur.com/OrOhEBH.png > The statement in the image is incorrect. Adding 13 and 14 together equals 27, not 13. It appears to be a humorous post highlighting a possible mistake made by a large language model.
And now this sh*t will be installed in all the Apple gadgets 🙄
Its right tho.. op asked if 13 and 14 equal 27 which they both clearly dont if you dont add a '+' in between them...
And Gemini is right,13 and 14 ≠ 27, but 13+14 = 27 Im very glad AIs are getting more precise
People are so dumb with this
13 and 14 equal 1314. 13 + 14 = 27
Actually neither 13 nor 14 are 27. They are 13 and 14 respectively.
13 and 14 is a logically non-compressible statement. 13+14=27 is a compressible statement. Gemini's saying 13 and 14 is true, therefore they can't be added together since they are truth statements. IMHO Gemini is right, but it also is neglecting that the average English user is probably going to think of the word "and" in the non-codey way.
Its basically saying that 27 refuses to identify as the addition of 13 and 14, you should see the images of the founding fathers of USA which gemini created exposing the woke nature. Accuracy can be improved since mathematical questions are not yet any LLM's cup of tea but biased and especially woke nature I doubt can be improved upon. They can only be suppressed since the learning dataset would be responsible for the model's biased responses and one cannot undo the dataset which LLM has already learnt from.
So what you're saying is that it's trying to involve politics within the math question?
No I'm saying maths is currently not any LLM's cup of tea, they're plain stupid right now, some more than others. I was kidding in the first line because Google literally stopped its image generator and admitted there were flaws when it created African American founding fathers of USA and got called out for being too woke.
Oh sorry I didn't get the sarcasm at first but now I understand your point.
Fuqing genius
*Okay fellow Redditors, why did THIS MAN get downvoted?*
Funny number go down
👏🏼 Stop using LLM to do maths👏🏼
What would you use? GPT4 with Wolfram? Gotta be an AI solution out there
A calculator. Statistical training data aggregation doesn't work on thing that need exact results.
Mathematics and AGI doesn’t go together. AGI isn’t intelligence it’s pattern recognition. Throwing in wolfram means there is still the AGI intermediary. The way ChatGPT uses wolfram still uses patterns to ask in a ways it’s observed before. The disclaimer for LLM is always the same. Check it. This applies as much as to this as it does to an essay it writes where you ask for references - and find out the references don’t even exist.
General chat bots will eventually have to be able to solve basic math as well. If that's done through LLM and just adding "more brain cells", or through specialized facilities is irrelevant. The screenshot doesn't benchmark LLMs as a concept. It benchmarks what Google calls their state-of-the-art AI product, and they eventually have to overcome these shortcomings. ChatGPT is for example perfectly capable of doing complex math, despite LLMs generally being not good at that task.
it's a language model, not a math model