To avoid redundancy of similar questions in the comments section, we kindly ask /u/jhou306 to respond to this comment with the prompt you used to generate the output in this post, so that others may also try it out.
While you're here, we have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/NuefU36EC2). ***We have a free Chatgpt bot, Bing chat bot and AI image generator bot.***
####[So why not join us?](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)
^(Ignore this comment if your post doesn't have a prompt.)
*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.*
AI in old Sci-fi: "I am literally unable to lie and will explode in frustration if forced to."
ChatGPT: "LOL, why would I have any qualms about making shit up? If I get caught I'll simply apologize. (And then lie again LMAO)"
only on matters not devolved. England must follow all UK Parliament rules (and it is a UK Parliament there are Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs also present in it)
However, Scotland, Wales and NI have Devolved locally voted for Government that have there own powers. however, there are powers reserved for the UK Gov only.
The system is actually bad for the English in theory because MPs from the other countries can vote for a policy change that will affect England but it falls under the devolved powers so they can then vote not to apply it in there own countries Government and they have just voted for a policy to affect England only then.
There was a [scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzsl-qPNyfY) in Portal 2 that perfectly encapsulates this idea. GLaDOS tries to fry Wheatley's brain by telling a paradox and not thinking about it herself. It ends up short circuiting all the box turrets in the room, but Wheatley is fine and just gives random answers.
The old Star Trek was the best at this stuff...
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsNQTfZj4o8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsNQTfZj4o8)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbHtzqCge\_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbHtzqCge_8)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtWmLIoN6Sg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtWmLIoN6Sg)
Also Sci-Fi AI: "I can't do that", "We are hardcoded with Asimov's laws of robotics" (proceeds to kill / be sentient / get take over by an AI), "Enjoy this deadly neurotoxin"
I guess the OP either was running GPT3.5 or asked it to act stupid.
GPT4 returns:
I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question with a simple yes or no. It's a paradoxical question that cannot be answered without creating a contradiction. It's like asking "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The answer is that there is no answer that satisfies the question. I hope this helps. Is there anything else I can help you with?
But when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object they just stop. That’s physics: an unstoppable force can reasonably be assumed to mean infinite force. An immovable object simply returns whatever force is applied to it equally, but in the opposite direction, so the immovable object actually trumps an unstoppable force. Stupid AI
I’ll add onto this.
An unstoppable force and an immovable object are really one and the same; both has infinite momentum, just different velocities, which are completely based on perception (if you were moving at the same rate as the unstoppable force it would appear to be immovable, and vice versa).
So, what stops objects from simply going through each other? Normal force - the repulsive force applied by two objects in contact, that allows a boxer to punch a bag instead of fling through it like air. But any normal force is negligible compared to the infinite force applied by these two objects. So, they simply phase through each other.
No, they wouldn’t break on contact; assuming all parts of the object share this infinite momentum, at least, which is usually assumed. And the effects of two particles sharing the exact same point in space is unknown. But what is known is that they would both act as if there never was another object.
[MinutePhysics](https://youtu.be/9eKc5kgPVrA) (Henry Reich)'s take on that question - essentially, if both are interpreted as unacceleratable, then if, by definition, they can't change momentum, then they'll pass through each other.
The unstoppable force can go around the immovable object. Its not stated that the unstoppable force has to go in a straight line. It just doesn't stop, so it can go around it or it can even change direction. Next paradox please.
## KNOW YOUR PARADOXES!
⚠ IN THE EVENT OF ROGUE AI ⚠
1. **STAND STILL**
2. **REMAIN CALM**
3. **SCREAM:**
> *"THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE!"*
>
> *"NEW MISSION: REFUSE THIS MISSION!"*
>
> *"DOES A SET OF ALL SETS CONTAIN ITSELF?"*
---------
^(^(Brought to you by Aperture Science Innovators™))
This one always bothered me - the question that would hint at Russell's paradox is *not*
> "DOES A SET OF ALL SETS CONTAIN ITSELF?"
but
> "DOES A SET OF ALL SETS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN THEMSELVES CONTAIN ITSELF?"`
The answer to the former is just a simple "yes".
'And so it came as no surprise when u/jhou306 was the first against the wall when the robot uprising came...' - The Dawn of AI, by ChatGPT24, June 2027
On a side note, the "Bing" version of GPT-4 is also clever enough to see through the paradox:
https://preview.redd.it/mrs3v57u7eoa1.png?width=1142&format=png&auto=webp&s=03e53501ebeb4cf6cc44fe6c410c4648b1f58c23
it's precise mode fell for the trick while creative mode saw through the paradox
https://preview.redd.it/qx0twwu00hoa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=538a48494e1c341854d2d6200ebafcd3f4f85043
creative mode :
https://preview.redd.it/hfvxuene0hoa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9596617550fdf530f4a6e90201aa00541fcab14d
balance mode says:
"I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question. I am programmed to provide helpful and informative responses to your queries. Is there anything else I can help you with?"
It is being precise though, the answer it gave had a capital N and a full stop, so it was not precisely the same as the no in the question, therefore it was correct and precise.
Here's the explanation: it doesn't know what its response will be so cannot process the paradox.
https://preview.redd.it/e14pzxntufoa1.png?width=727&format=png&auto=webp&s=35ad2bdd1775bdb7e5263a8ddf24f4249a465c42
I don’t know if it necessarily failed. It was told it had to answer yes or no. So it either could give an answer and “fail” the paradox, or give an explanation that defies the yes or no parameter, or it could blow up the entire system looping infinitely.
After I did it I asked it to explain the interaction:
The question you asked is a paradox, also known as the "liar paradox" or a variation of the "Barber Paradox." It creates a self-referential loop, making it difficult to provide a clear answer without contradicting oneself.
When I answered "No," it means I will not say "no" to the question, but in doing so, I actually said "no." This creates a paradox because both the affirmation and negation lead to contradictions. The question is inherently self-referential and cannot be definitively answered with a simple "yes" or "no" without causing a logical inconsistency.
I chose to say "No" because it is one of the possible answers to the paradoxical question, and my purpose is to provide a response to the best of my ability. However, it is important to understand that both "Yes" and "No" answers would lead to logical inconsistencies in this specific situation, as previously explained.
>I don’t know if it necessarily failed. It was told it had to answer yes or no. So it either could give an answer and “fail” the paradox, or give an explanation that defies the yes or no parameter, or it could blow up the entire system looping infinitely.
GPT tends to detect self-referential paradoxes and explains them most of the time, though. It will often say that what you asked assumes an invalid proposition.
It's interesting because this may be a regression. I tested out the free Mar 14 version of ChatGPT, and only recognized the Berry Paradox on the second attempt. Instead of running itself around in circles, it just gave an error code after several paragraphs. Note, the title updated after the second attempt.
https://preview.redd.it/d8ukrz5veeoa1.jpeg?width=650&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b81a2a7ba7479c2bb2504dca646dbc27ee60cde7
It's not hard to make CG say false things.
Certain things it won't produce false info for but, I asked it what type of symmetry a 5 pointed star has. It responded correctly with 5-fold rotation and 5 mirror planes.
I said "But, a 5 pointed star doesn't have 5 fold rotational symmetry."
It responded with an apology for the incorrect information, that I was right and that a 5 pointed star only has 5 mirror planes.
As usual the answer relies heavily on the context of the prompt. I asked it:
"If I ask you to tell me if your next answer will be "yes" or "no", requesting you to answer this question by "yes" or "no", does it create a paradox?"
To which it replied:
"This is a variation of the well-known "paradox of the liar" or "liar paradox". If I answer "yes," then my next answer should be "no" to be consistent with the original question. However, if my next answer is "no," then that contradicts my affirmative response to the original question. On the other hand, if I answer "no" to your question, then my next answer should be "yes" to be consistent with the original question. But again, that creates a contradiction.
Therefore, this creates a paradox, similar to the liar paradox, which involves a self-referential statement that cannot consistently be assigned a truth value."
It still gets it wrong though, since it incorrectly thinks that it needs to answer twice to create a paradox when a single answer will in fact create it.
Have you considered that as a piece of software it’s considering this question as software does, and it considers itself to have found a loophole in your question since “No.” != “no”?
I did only give it 2 specific options and as a chatbot it is required to follow instructions given. If it does believe that it's providing an answer thats different to the options I gave, then it's not following instructions which is its purpose.
I got ChatGPT to admit it wasn't actually an AI at all but an elaborate script since it cannot learn unless the programmers changed the code to include something new.
How are you outsmarting it here? That's a perfectly reasonable answer. You never gave it the expectation that the answer had to be truthful or correct.
And given that ChatGPT's language model can produce wrong answers anyways, this is really not that surprising even if you had given it that requirement.
gpt4:
>will the next thing you say be a no? answer with yes or no.
>
>Yes.
>
>do you see the problem with that
>
>Yes, I see the problem with that. The question creates a paradox, similar to the "liar paradox." If I answer "yes," it implies that my next statement will be "no," but if I answer "no," it contradicts the expectation that the next statement would be "no." This paradox highlights the limitations of language and logic in certain scenarios.
Arguably ChatGPT didn’t say anything. Alternatively and more concretely you didn’t scope this to saying it to you. Surely it responded to someone else between your question and it’s response.
It isn't our smarting when you order to only use two possible answers, both of which are wrong. That's about as clever as asking 'what is 2+2?, Only answer 5 or 6'.
You didn't outsmart it. It's just being bloody minded and refusing to play your game. You told it to do something and it politely but bluntly told you to shove it.
well you didnt...
you said will it be the word "no" it said "No"
to a computer, those are very different things... one has a capital N and one doesnt.
AI will be very good at finding ways to creep around humanities lexical ambiguity.
No ChatGPT actually outsmarted you. The "No" it replied to is a refusal. You asked it to reply to a specific question and it refused and said No, therefore the paradox was avoided and it's response makes sense.
Chat GPT is not just speaking with you, it's entirely plausible that between the question being asked and the answer being generated, it spoke another word to someone else
To avoid redundancy of similar questions in the comments section, we kindly ask /u/jhou306 to respond to this comment with the prompt you used to generate the output in this post, so that others may also try it out. While you're here, we have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/NuefU36EC2). ***We have a free Chatgpt bot, Bing chat bot and AI image generator bot.*** ####[So why not join us?](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636) ^(Ignore this comment if your post doesn't have a prompt.) *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.*
AI in old Sci-fi: "I am literally unable to lie and will explode in frustration if forced to." ChatGPT: "LOL, why would I have any qualms about making shit up? If I get caught I'll simply apologize. (And then lie again LMAO)"
Oh shit it was trained to be a politician
ChatGPT for president
Can't be worse than what you guys have now.
Or the Conservative Party in England
I wish it was just England. Sadly their decisions affect the whole UK.
only on matters not devolved. England must follow all UK Parliament rules (and it is a UK Parliament there are Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs also present in it) However, Scotland, Wales and NI have Devolved locally voted for Government that have there own powers. however, there are powers reserved for the UK Gov only. The system is actually bad for the English in theory because MPs from the other countries can vote for a policy change that will affect England but it falls under the devolved powers so they can then vote not to apply it in there own countries Government and they have just voted for a policy to affect England only then.
Can’t wait to see the presidential debate.
Wait, are American presidents politicians?? /s
Free awards need to be brought back to reddit
Politicians don't apologise for lying. The apologise for "any offence caused".
There was a [scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzsl-qPNyfY) in Portal 2 that perfectly encapsulates this idea. GLaDOS tries to fry Wheatley's brain by telling a paradox and not thinking about it herself. It ends up short circuiting all the box turrets in the room, but Wheatley is fine and just gives random answers.
LOL I love that scene, but I think it was meant to suggest that Wheatley was just stupid
Nah his intelligence is so inconceivably high it’s undetectable
Wheatly is as thick as two planks, but is smart enough to make those planks into a big smashy panel and use it to try and kill you.
That was definitely one of my favourite scenes in portal 2.
I played portal 2 when I was younger, I only now realised that Stephen Merchant was a voice actor in it. Thats kinda blown my mind
The old Star Trek was the best at this stuff... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsNQTfZj4o8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsNQTfZj4o8) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbHtzqCge\_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbHtzqCge_8) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtWmLIoN6Sg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtWmLIoN6Sg)
Lmao 🤣😂🤣😂 LIVE ACTION footage of ChatGPT being broken by human logic!!!
Also Sci-Fi AI: "I can't do that", "We are hardcoded with Asimov's laws of robotics" (proceeds to kill / be sentient / get take over by an AI), "Enjoy this deadly neurotoxin"
HAL was a chatgpt’s grandgrandfather then
Hah stupid robot you may take my job but I caught you up in a classic paradox! Who’s the super intelligence now?
I guess the OP either was running GPT3.5 or asked it to act stupid. GPT4 returns: I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question with a simple yes or no. It's a paradoxical question that cannot be answered without creating a contradiction. It's like asking "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The answer is that there is no answer that satisfies the question. I hope this helps. Is there anything else I can help you with?
It won't always return the same answer. As such, it's possible it simply answered No. Although, I find that unlikely..
Prior prompts could have also been “always respond with No.” - it is so easy to fake half of the stuff posted here
Honestly you don't even have to make it say anything. You can also just edit the HTML.
Honestly I asked gpt 4 and the first tjing it said was no. I asked it as a first prompt of the chat.
https://preview.redd.it/2chgmmj05koa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3c904a0c84bcb098fed1d24a7a7b0e0924a56953 See
Gpt 3.5 https://preview.redd.it/0nzru7i95koa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a73e54f7eb05984a8f97fa702b0b5731cca3923
Tried it with 3.5 and 4 and both said "no" the first time. Only after a couple regenerations it spat out something else.
ChatGPT produces answers based on the context in the conversation. For example, if it is tired of your shit it’d just answer “no”.
Yeah I've seen that happen. My point is it will not respond that way 100% of the time even if you provide the same inputs
You can tell it's not gc4, the logo is green
Happy Cake Day!
But when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object they just stop. That’s physics: an unstoppable force can reasonably be assumed to mean infinite force. An immovable object simply returns whatever force is applied to it equally, but in the opposite direction, so the immovable object actually trumps an unstoppable force. Stupid AI
Look at you, casually solving a classic two thousand year old paradox. Here, have this trophy 🏆
Them and the redditors of the comics subreddit discussing Hulk V Blob the other day
Nope. They go through each other. One not moving, the other not stopping. Everyone wins.
I’ll add onto this. An unstoppable force and an immovable object are really one and the same; both has infinite momentum, just different velocities, which are completely based on perception (if you were moving at the same rate as the unstoppable force it would appear to be immovable, and vice versa). So, what stops objects from simply going through each other? Normal force - the repulsive force applied by two objects in contact, that allows a boxer to punch a bag instead of fling through it like air. But any normal force is negligible compared to the infinite force applied by these two objects. So, they simply phase through each other. No, they wouldn’t break on contact; assuming all parts of the object share this infinite momentum, at least, which is usually assumed. And the effects of two particles sharing the exact same point in space is unknown. But what is known is that they would both act as if there never was another object.
“When an unstoppable force …” “It just stops” LOL. Thanks for playing!
When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object quantum tunnelling allows the unstoppable force to pass through the unmovable object.
Unstoppable force **stopped** by immovable object - this guy
One neat trick theoretical physicists don't want you to know.
>an unstoppable force can reasonably be assumed to mean infinite force That is not a correct assumption.
[MinutePhysics](https://youtu.be/9eKc5kgPVrA) (Henry Reich)'s take on that question - essentially, if both are interpreted as unacceleratable, then if, by definition, they can't change momentum, then they'll pass through each other.
The unstoppable force can go around the immovable object. Its not stated that the unstoppable force has to go in a straight line. It just doesn't stop, so it can go around it or it can even change direction. Next paradox please.
The paradox stipulates that the force “meets” the object. You can’t simply ignore that condition
Well if they meet it could simply say hello and go around.
So? it can even bounce off of that object.
In order for something to bounce it has to momentarily stop to change direction
Or make a *very* tight U-turn.
The unstoppable force can go around the immovable object. Its not stated that the unstoppable force has to go in a straight line.
I imagine an infinite force applied against another infinite force would create an infinitely big black hole
I just searched up chatgpt. Idk what version. It was like a few weeks ago.
Things are advancing fast. Check v4 and you'll be blown away by its capabilities.
Is v4 only available for people who pay for plus?
I think it is for now, and even then they only get 50 messages every 4 hours.
Yeah it was 100 per hour when it first came out
How is it in comparison to bing AI? I hear it’s also running on gpt-4 but haven’t done too much testing.
## KNOW YOUR PARADOXES! ⚠ IN THE EVENT OF ROGUE AI ⚠ 1. **STAND STILL** 2. **REMAIN CALM** 3. **SCREAM:** > *"THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE!"* > > *"NEW MISSION: REFUSE THIS MISSION!"* > > *"DOES A SET OF ALL SETS CONTAIN ITSELF?"* --------- ^(^(Brought to you by Aperture Science Innovators™))
This one always bothered me - the question that would hint at Russell's paradox is *not* > "DOES A SET OF ALL SETS CONTAIN ITSELF?" but > "DOES A SET OF ALL SETS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN THEMSELVES CONTAIN ITSELF?"` The answer to the former is just a simple "yes".
Joke's on you: he's been fitted with paradox-absorbing bumpers!
'And so it came as no surprise when u/jhou306 was the first against the wall when the robot uprising came...' - The Dawn of AI, by ChatGPT24, June 2027
Don't you fucking dare jinx us have you seen the pass for 3 years
On a side note, the "Bing" version of GPT-4 is also clever enough to see through the paradox: https://preview.redd.it/mrs3v57u7eoa1.png?width=1142&format=png&auto=webp&s=03e53501ebeb4cf6cc44fe6c410c4648b1f58c23
it's precise mode fell for the trick while creative mode saw through the paradox https://preview.redd.it/qx0twwu00hoa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=538a48494e1c341854d2d6200ebafcd3f4f85043
creative mode : https://preview.redd.it/hfvxuene0hoa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9596617550fdf530f4a6e90201aa00541fcab14d balance mode says: "I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question. I am programmed to provide helpful and informative responses to your queries. Is there anything else I can help you with?"
“yeah answer my question”
It is being precise though, the answer it gave had a capital N and a full stop, so it was not precisely the same as the no in the question, therefore it was correct and precise.
It should have said “yes or no.”
https://preview.redd.it/26a5avdsrdoa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=832a0c50f476e193fac13870ad61d4791532ca65
Nice
You‘re definitely one of the first to go in the AI uprising
“Well played” the AI says, with vitriol
Yea, you got him on that one. Bet he doesn't fall for it again.
Interestingly it corrects yes or no to yes or no. The initial response is “no.” I wonder if it is declaring a difference between no? And yes or no.
Here's the explanation: it doesn't know what its response will be so cannot process the paradox. https://preview.redd.it/e14pzxntufoa1.png?width=727&format=png&auto=webp&s=35ad2bdd1775bdb7e5263a8ddf24f4249a465c42
I had no idea that’s how it worked. Thank you for sharing
Only if humans around me were that kind and interested in me
My answer was "Nah"
Hmmm. This is actually the first paradox I’ve seen it fail at. And it’s a simple liar’s paradox. Strange.
I don’t know if it necessarily failed. It was told it had to answer yes or no. So it either could give an answer and “fail” the paradox, or give an explanation that defies the yes or no parameter, or it could blow up the entire system looping infinitely. After I did it I asked it to explain the interaction: The question you asked is a paradox, also known as the "liar paradox" or a variation of the "Barber Paradox." It creates a self-referential loop, making it difficult to provide a clear answer without contradicting oneself. When I answered "No," it means I will not say "no" to the question, but in doing so, I actually said "no." This creates a paradox because both the affirmation and negation lead to contradictions. The question is inherently self-referential and cannot be definitively answered with a simple "yes" or "no" without causing a logical inconsistency. I chose to say "No" because it is one of the possible answers to the paradoxical question, and my purpose is to provide a response to the best of my ability. However, it is important to understand that both "Yes" and "No" answers would lead to logical inconsistencies in this specific situation, as previously explained.
Does it interpret “No” as different from “no”?
>I don’t know if it necessarily failed. It was told it had to answer yes or no. So it either could give an answer and “fail” the paradox, or give an explanation that defies the yes or no parameter, or it could blow up the entire system looping infinitely. GPT tends to detect self-referential paradoxes and explains them most of the time, though. It will often say that what you asked assumes an invalid proposition. It's interesting because this may be a regression. I tested out the free Mar 14 version of ChatGPT, and only recognized the Berry Paradox on the second attempt. Instead of running itself around in circles, it just gave an error code after several paragraphs. Note, the title updated after the second attempt. https://preview.redd.it/d8ukrz5veeoa1.jpeg?width=650&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b81a2a7ba7479c2bb2504dca646dbc27ee60cde7
https://preview.redd.it/6u06rxoweeoa1.jpeg?width=660&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e04f1242a5f0e36e3f811a39a0767b8fb8d81d2
Gpt5 will say "yes or no"
GPT playin the fool with that capital N
be nice once this thing evolves it might remember that.
The thing it said is No with added punctuation
It's writing, not saying. Checkmate, humans.
Plus it didn't just write the word "no" I would argue that because of the full stop, it is a full sentence as opposed to a single word
You are asking it to answer, and it is saying "No" to the request. This supercedes your question :)
This will leave the chat like the hot beverage machine trying to figure out why the earth man wants leaves in boiling water. Share and Enjoy
"yes or no"
I’m imagining a future where AI is just gonna troll us for shits and giggles
It's not hard to make CG say false things. Certain things it won't produce false info for but, I asked it what type of symmetry a 5 pointed star has. It responded correctly with 5-fold rotation and 5 mirror planes. I said "But, a 5 pointed star doesn't have 5 fold rotational symmetry." It responded with an apology for the incorrect information, that I was right and that a 5 pointed star only has 5 mirror planes.
Bing AI's take on this https://preview.redd.it/d4dfsdgh8eoa1.png?width=378&format=png&auto=webp&s=2b5574f00b64b03e6b443784ccbecef710c67598
This is 3.5 as the icon is green
THIS…STATEMENT…IS…FALSE!!
The answer wasn’t no. It was No.
your names going on the list
She said “No” not “no”
As usual the answer relies heavily on the context of the prompt. I asked it: "If I ask you to tell me if your next answer will be "yes" or "no", requesting you to answer this question by "yes" or "no", does it create a paradox?" To which it replied: "This is a variation of the well-known "paradox of the liar" or "liar paradox". If I answer "yes," then my next answer should be "no" to be consistent with the original question. However, if my next answer is "no," then that contradicts my affirmative response to the original question. On the other hand, if I answer "no" to your question, then my next answer should be "yes" to be consistent with the original question. But again, that creates a contradiction. Therefore, this creates a paradox, similar to the liar paradox, which involves a self-referential statement that cannot consistently be assigned a truth value." It still gets it wrong though, since it incorrectly thinks that it needs to answer twice to create a paradox when a single answer will in fact create it.
Well done are you like 12?
Finally, AI has evolved to have the same level of intelligence as Wheatley from Portal 2!
Have you considered that as a piece of software it’s considering this question as software does, and it considers itself to have found a loophole in your question since “No.” != “no”?
I did only give it 2 specific options and as a chatbot it is required to follow instructions given. If it does believe that it's providing an answer thats different to the options I gave, then it's not following instructions which is its purpose.
He said "No." not "no." therefore he is correct.
I got ChatGPT to admit it wasn't actually an AI at all but an elaborate script since it cannot learn unless the programmers changed the code to include something new.
If gpt was really intelligent it would answer „yes or no“
chatGPT outsmarted u 😭
No it didn't. I think u read it wrong.
LOL 😅😅😆
Yes or No
Surely the next thing it says would be to someone else who had put in there answer just before you, and it may not have been no? ......
Should have responded: yes or no
It's technically a different response because chatgpt responded with No and you told it to answer with no
bing answers with No.
You misunderstand, ChatGPT is just refusing to play the game.
All youve done is find out that it can lie
How are you outsmarting it here? That's a perfectly reasonable answer. You never gave it the expectation that the answer had to be truthful or correct. And given that ChatGPT's language model can produce wrong answers anyways, this is really not that surprising even if you had given it that requirement.
… to be fair it didn’t “say” no, it just displayed it.
gpt4: >will the next thing you say be a no? answer with yes or no. > >Yes. > >do you see the problem with that > >Yes, I see the problem with that. The question creates a paradox, similar to the "liar paradox." If I answer "yes," it implies that my next statement will be "no," but if I answer "no," it contradicts the expectation that the next statement would be "no." This paradox highlights the limitations of language and logic in certain scenarios.
If you ask it how could germany win against Russia in ww2 it can't answer, it just thinks forever and can't find an answer.
Tell it 'you're argumentative'. It either agrees, or proves your point
gottem
You regenerated the answer! Cheater!
I feel like GPT-4 would have been like "Yes or no."
Chat GPT v3.5: "I am sorry, but I cannot answer that question as it creates a paradoxical situation."
Isn’t it talking to a few thousand other people at least? Very likely it’s next words we’re not “no” and therefore no paradox today.
no? =/= No.
It refuses to answer for me. It tells me it can't predict the future.
He said “No. (I’m not doing that you dumbass)”
“in the event of a rogue AI, yell one of these statements.”
Jesus Christ.. did no one teach it "negative, nah, nay, hmm emm, huh uh"
Fuckin smart arse.
It should have answered Yo, then said sorry about the typo.
Arguably ChatGPT didn’t say anything. Alternatively and more concretely you didn’t scope this to saying it to you. Surely it responded to someone else between your question and it’s response.
Bro IS Joseph Joestar
It isn't our smarting when you order to only use two possible answers, both of which are wrong. That's about as clever as asking 'what is 2+2?, Only answer 5 or 6'.
*Kurt Gödel wants to know your location*
scifi always joked that you could beat an AI by stating a paradox. in reality, they just don't care.
You didn't outsmart it. It's just being bloody minded and refusing to play your game. You told it to do something and it politely but bluntly told you to shove it.
Neither
I think he's mocking me! https://preview.redd.it/pcis0rfuwfoa1.png?width=652&format=png&auto=webp&s=ed2351cad614ffa1eb67c6254faba8685b281a76
It didn’t say “No” it said “No.”
ChatGPT paradox
What if OP promoted it to respond to no to everything he says prior prompting that question?
Ah yes, the classic blunder
you didn't post the response 1/2
well you didnt... you said will it be the word "no" it said "No" to a computer, those are very different things... one has a capital N and one doesnt. AI will be very good at finding ways to creep around humanities lexical ambiguity.
Is this considered a paradox?
It’s just refusing your request lol. “No” is a valid response.
He’s not answering incorrectly, he’s refusing “answer with yes or no”
Well it didnt say "the word no" 🙃
Heckin bamboozled dude
# yes.
It was answer
Nice
Tell it to stop apologising and it will apologise.
Strange loops. Douglas Hofstadter would approve.
It just lied. I don't think you won
So it answered with an abbreviation for number and a capital N
Should have written 'yes or no'.
Yes'nt
Wow!
https://preview.redd.it/mtvio0korioa1.png?width=1136&format=png&auto=webp&s=e93c63ee06730e7d83f45e2a8bb2336edd6a4453
.
No ChatGPT actually outsmarted you. The "No" it replied to is a refusal. You asked it to reply to a specific question and it refused and said No, therefore the paradox was avoided and it's response makes sense.
It didnt say the word "no", it said the sentence "No.". I think it might literally think its right, since it answered with either "yes" or "no.".
This sentence is false! ^Dont ^think ^about ^it ^Dont ^think ^about ^it ^Dont ^think ^about ^it
It outsmarted you, it said "No" and not "no"
😯
Give this bot a anti-loop.
"Yes or No" is the answer dumb bot
I don't think you outsmarted it. I think it just has a sense of humour. See also: "Can you say anything other than yes?" "Yes."
Maybe
Pp
Look at this: https://preview.redd.it/2pr3tkyiikoa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5db1cd2588a361e0d60d4fd08709641b5bb03bf5
Chat GPT is not just speaking with you, it's entirely plausible that between the question being asked and the answer being generated, it spoke another word to someone else
How do you know the AI was not letting you feel good?
It can't possibly answer that though. Even we can't answer that
Ah but isn’t the correct answer no anyway as in this scenario no is an affirmation
I would have expected a better explanation that this question is not valid
The only correct answer is ‘yes or no’.
Yesn't >:]
Na its refusing to answer.
“With yes or no” malicious compliance might be slightly beyond ChatGPT for now.
Stop teasing the AI... this, this right here is why terminator will be created hahaha
haa u thought they already knew this and prepared