ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by thinking4real on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @06:40PM (#34333059)

The 200 one seemed underwhelming. Sounded more like someone posting online trying to sound really smart

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by w0de0 on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @06:51PM (#34333149)

I don't think it is thinking 4 real

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by samuria on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @07:24PM (#34333428)

Well, that's exactly what it has been fed with, so it makes sense why it would be sounding that way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by paxys on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @07:27PM (#34333449)

IMO it didn't sound like a person at all, just a passage lifted out of a science textbook.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by azalemeth on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @07:55PM (#34333611)

There is also a lot more that one could say about rain: dry adiabatic lapse rates, phase transitions, the role of dust and aerosols as a nucleation site, Clausius Cleyparon, and the ilk would be natural things for this persona to talk about. Instead it sounded like SEO spam on steroids.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by mc32 on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @08:25PM (#34333855)

Unusual in that they all have the same spelling ability.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by m00x on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @11:47PM (#34335101)

Unless I'm mistaken, chatGPT is trained on word embeddings, so it can't really make spelling mistakes, unless those misspelled words are included in the vocabulary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by Kaibeezy on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @05:46AM (#34337078)

It can also be directed to include any degree of spelling and grammar errors, as camouflage.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34136940

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by CodeyWhizzBang on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:20AM (#34337275)

Although the grammar is quite poor in the 50 IQ one

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by geysersam on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @08:25PM (#34333866)

It probably haven't had much practice. It's not like the internet is shock full of texts tagged with the IQ of the author. It is, however, full of SEO texts, Wikipedia articles, and /r/askscience answers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by m00x on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @11:45PM (#34335092)

There are also 1 in 6B people with an IQ of 200 or above, and I imagine they're not prefacing every public forum interaction with: "I have an IQ of 200, here's my take on..."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by Kaibeezy on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @05:51AM (#34337105)

“chock” full (IQ 150)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by geysersam on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:09AM (#34337196)

Thank you. I'm doing the best I can with my peak of the bell curve IQ.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by Kaibeezy on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:46AM (#34337434)

fuhgeddaboudit

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by zardo on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @08:45PM (#34334031)

I think it captures the style of a person who posts about their 200 IQ well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ChatGPT simulating people with an IQ of 200, 100, 70, and 50 by mrcheesebreeze on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @10:53PM (#34334835)

Maybe it means a "200" iq from someone who did an online quiz once.

[ Parent | on HN ]