Technology

wait you're serious? this isn't satire???

Oh! I got it now, this is advertisement

[special pleading] Those are all the smallest models

[sarcasm] Yeah, because if you randomly throw more bricks in a construction site, the bigger pile of debris will look more like a house, right. [/sarcasm]

and you don’t seem to have reasoning [SIC] mode, or external tooling, enabled?

Those are the chatbots available through DDG. I just found it amusing enough to share, given

1. The logic procedure to be followed (multiplication) is rather simple, and well documented across the internet, thus certainly present in their corpora.
2. The result is easy to judge: it's either correct or incorrect.
3. All answers are incorrect and different from each other.

Small note regarding "reasoning": just like "hallucination" and anything they say about semantics, it's a red herring that obfuscates what is really happening.

At the end of the day it's simply weighting the next token based on the previous tokens + prompt, and optionally calling some external tool. It is not really reasoning; what's doing is not too different in spirit from Markov chains, except more complex.

[no true Scotsman] LLM ≠ AI system

If large "language" models don't count as "AI systems", then what you shared in the OP does not either. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

It’s been known for fome time, that LLMs do “vibe math”.

I.e. they're unable to perform actual maths.

[moving goalposts] Internally, they try to come up with an answer that “feels” right…

It doesn't matter if the answer "feels" right (whatever this means). The answer is incorrect.

which makes it pretty impressive for them to come anywhere close, within a ±10% error margin.

No, the fact they are unable to perform a simple logical procedure is not "impressive". Specially not when outputting the "approximation" as if it was the true value; note how none of the models outputted anything remotely similar to "the result is close to $number" or "the result is approximately $number".

[arbitrary restriction + whataboutism] Ask people to tell you what a right answer could be, give them 1 second to answer… see how many come that close to the right one.

None of the prompts had a time limit. You're making shit up.

Also. Sure, humans brainfart all the time; that does not magically mean that those systems are smart or doing some 4D chess as your OP implies.

A chatbot/AI system on the other hand, will come up with some Python code to do the calculation, then run it. Still can go wrong, but it’s way less likely.

I.e. it would need to use some external tool, since it's unable to handle logic by itself, as exemplified by maths.

all explanation past the «are you counting the “rr” as a single r?» is babble

Not so sure about that. It treats r as a word, since it wasn’t specified as “r” or single letter. Then it interpretes it as… whatever. Is it the letter, phoneme,

The output is clearly handling it as letters. It hyphenates the letters to highlight them, it mentions "digram" (i.e. a sequence of two graphemes), so goes on. And in no moment is referring to anything that can be understood as associated with sounds, phonemes. And it's claiming there's an ⟨r⟩ «in the middle of the "rr" combination».

font, the programming language R...

There's no context whatsoever to justify any of those interpretations.

since it wasn’t specified, it assumes “whatever, or a mix of”.

If this was a human being, it would not be an assumption. Assumption is that sort of shit you make up from nowhere; here context dictates the reading of "r" as "the letter ⟨r⟩".

However since this is a bot it isn't even assuming. Just like a boulder doesn't "assume" you want it to roll down; it simply reacts to an external stimulus.

It failed at detecting the ambiguity and communicating it spontaneously, but corrected once that became part of the conversation.

There's no ambiguity in the initial prompt. And no, it did not correct what it says; the last reply is still babble, you don't count ⟨rr⟩ in English as a single letter.

It’s like, in your examples… what do you mean by “by”? “3 by 6” is 36… you meant to “multiply 36”? That’s nonsense… 🤷

I'd rather not answer this one because, if I did, I'd be pissing on Beehaw's core values.