That's an interesting chat. I had a very brief experience with it last week as well, though the only quick test I could think of on the spur of the moment was something like  "merge two Smalltalk arrays and sort the result". Which it did unnervingly well. I'm quite pleased to see you showed how limited it is - and it matches the view I've heard from a lot of people that have tried anything serious.

Unfortunately I suspect we are going to see a lot of 'content' produced by this system that will be treated as Serious Information To Base Policy On, whilst actually being as valuable as "this bloke down the pub told me..."

> On 2023-01-08, at 5:03 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> All the hubbub finally got me excited enough to sit down and "meet" ChatGPT.  A brief sign up process abruptly gave way to my "First Contact."  As if it realized my presence before I realized its, there it was, the Faceless White Canvas, staring at me, waiting, even daring me to talk about anything.  For me, it was a startlingly surreal experience that sent a chill down my spine, as if talking to an alien for the first time.
> 
> I therefore decided to start with something concrete, Smalltalk.  Something versed enough in to help me understand its understanding, and whether it can actually "learn".
> 
> 90% of the conversation centers on this one question for the purpose of exploring its limitations and self-contradictions.
> 
> <image.png>
> I think it's safe to say we aren't in danger of losing our glamourous, high-paying jobs as Smalltalk Superstars.  It helps me understand what ChatGPT is -- a language model, not a domain expert, and not a logical inference engine.  Certainly fun, but questionable utility.
> 
> Here's the full conversation.
> 
> https://sharegpt.com/c/hswnfmT
> 
>  - Chris
> 


tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- So dumb, blondes tell jokes about him.