# Wiki Contributions

I haven’t tested extensively but first impression is that this is indeed the case. Would be interesting to see if Sydney is similar but I think there’s a limit on number of messages per conversation or something?

When you did this do you let ChatGPT play both sides or were you playing one side? I think it is much better if it gets to play both sides.

I tried this with chatGPT to see just how big the difference was.

ChatGPT is pretty terrible at FEN in both games (Zack and Erik). In Erik’s game it insisted on giving me a position after 13 moves even though 25 moves had happened. When I pointed this out it told me that because there were no captures or pawn moves between moves 13 and 25 the FEN stayed the same…

However it is able to give sensible continuations of >20 ply to checkmate for both positions provided you instruct it not to give commentary and to only provide the moves. The second you allow it to comment on moves it spouts nonsense and starts making illegal moves. I also sometimes had to point out that it was black to play.

In Zack’s game ChatGPT has black set a trap for white (14… Ne5) and has white fall into it (15. Qxd4). After this 15… Nf3+ wins the Queen with a discovered attack from the bishop on g7.

Example continuation:

14... Ne5 15. Qxd4 Nf3+ 16. gxf3 Bxd4 17. Nxd4 Qxd4 18. Be3 Qxb2 19. Rec1 Bh3 20. Rab1 Qf6 21. Bd1 Rfc8 22. Rxc8+ Rxc8 23. Rxb7 Qa1 24. Bxa7 Qxd1#

One other continuation it gave got to checkmate on move 51 without any illegal moves or obvious blunders! (Other than whites initial blunder to fall into the trap)

In Erik’s game ChatGPT manages to play 29 ply of near perfect game for both players:

25... d5 26. g5 d4 27. cxd4 exd4 28. Qd2 Bb3+ 29. Ke1 Nd7 30. Nf5 Ne5 31. Be2 d3 32. Bd1 Bxd1 33. Kxd1 Nxf3 34. Qc3 f6 35. Qc4+ Kh8 36. Qe6 Qa5 37. Kc1 Qc3+ 38. Kb1 Rb8+ 39. Ka2 Qb2#

Stockfish prefers 26… dxc4+ and later on keeps wanting Bc5 for black plus black takes slightly to complete the checkmate than optimal but overall this is very accurate for both players.

Might be worth playing a game against chatGPT while telling it not to give any commentary?

Despite being a GPT-3 instance DALL-E appears to be able to draw an adequate " SolidGoldMagikarp" (if you allow for its usual lack of ability to spell). I tried a couple of alternative prompts without any anomalous results.

FWIW this matches my own experience with one as a company car pretty exactly.

(On mine (UK, right hand drive) the wipers can be activated manually by pressing the button on the end of the left stalk. This also brings up an on-screen menu for selecting constant wiping)

Get out of our houses before we are driven to expend effort killing them, and similarly for all the other places ants conflict with humans (stinging, eating crops, ..)

Ant mafia: "Lovely house you've got there, wouldn't it be a shame if it got all filled up with ants?"

I can't tell you whether this is right or not but this is what ChatGPT thinks:

"Is it possible to put a latex table in a footnote?"

"Yes, it is possible to include a LaTeX table in a footnote. You can do this by using the footnote or footnotetext commands provided by the footmisc package.

Here is an example of how to use these commands to include a table in a footnote:

\usepackage{footmisc} 

 ... 

 \begin{table}[h] 

\centering 

\begin{tabular}{c c c} 

A & B & C \\ 

1 & 2 & 3 \\ 

4 & 5 & 6 

\end{tabular} 

\caption{Table caption} 

\end{table} 

 ... 

 \footnote{ 

\begin{table}[h] 

\centering 

\begin{tabular}{c c c} 

D & E & F \\ 

7 & 8 & 9 \\ 

10 & 11 & 12 

\end{tabular} 

\caption{Table caption in footnote} 

\end{table} 

} 

Note that when including a table in a footnote, you should use the table environment as you would normally, but place it inside the footnote or footnotetext command. You should also make sure to use the [h] option for the table environment to prevent the table from floating.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions."

I think the article undersells the problems of ChatGPT's hallucinations. One example from the article where ChatGPT is said to win is a recipe for risotto. However, I wouldn't follow a risotto recipe for ChatGPT just because I can't be confident it hasn't hallucinated some portion of the recipe but would happily follow one from Google, even if the format is a bit more annoying. Same issue with calculating load bearing capacity for a beam only more serious!

Having said that, it does seem like there are definitely specific areas where ChatGPT will be more useful. Coding is a good example as verifying the code is usually straightforward and/or would need to be done anyway. In many cases ChatGPT for an overview followed by Google for more detail/verification is probably a good way to go - I think this would be a good idea for the load bearing wall example.

One thing I've found useful is to make sure I identify to the supplier what specifically I need about the product I'm ordering - sometimes they have something similar in stock which meets my requirements.

One thing I think makes a big difference to me is whether I feel like the provider is taking a collaborative or adversarial stance.

1. I don't usually skip ads on Youtube content but if the channel is often clickbaity/misrepresenting content then I will
2. The printer/ink thing feels very out to get me. The alternative model of printer subscription (e.g. hp) feels alot more collaborative so I don't feel the need to ensure that every page I print is as filled with ink as possible so as to get the "best" deal.
3. If the premium charged on foods in an amusement park/movie theatre feels excessive then I will feel less bad about eating my own food.