jeff8765
85
17
jeff8765 has not written any posts yet.
Grok 4 was able to guess my rule of "three rational numbers." Haven't tested out other models yet.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw%3D%3D_748b1b41-eda9-4619-868e-5bb4cb022d50
EDIT: Claude Opus 4 is also able to guess the rule on the first attempt.
https://claude.ai/share/4dcd8fcf-4fcb-4d48-a18f-70c56a9c4be7
It seems that o4-mini-high (released today) is able to solve the first problem with one attempt, though it needs some prompting to explain its solution. It first asserts that the minimal number of moves is 15. If you ask it to list the moves, it is able to do so, and the list of moves seems valid on my check. If asked to prove that 15 is minimal, it reports that a BFS shows that 15 is minimal.
I'm not sure if this fully counts as a success, as I suspect it wrote code to perform the BFS while generating the answer. It was also unable to point out that, given a vaild 15 move sequence, it MUST be minimal as the sum of the taxicab distances of the initial and final positions is 15. I've included the chat link below.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68004414-78f8-8004-8f02-de904d969489
Looking back at the parameters of the bet, it's interesting to me that the benchmark and math components have all fallen, but that the two "real world" components of the bet are still standing.
It also seems a patent was filed for this material in 2021 and was granted earlier this year prior to publication.
Notably, if you tell it to think step by step it gets the question right and answers with:
This problem is known as the Monty Hall problem. In the original problem, the car is placed randomly behind one of the three doors, and the host always opens a door with a goat after you make your initial choice. However, in your variation, the car is always behind door number 1.
Let's analyze your version step by step:
You initially choose door No. 1, which always has the car behind it.
The host, knowing what's behind the doors, will always open one of the other two doors, revealing a goat. In this case, he opens door No.... (read more)
I've found it's ability to be much better as well. In contrast to GPT-3, which often seemed to be unable to keep track of board state and made illegal moves toward the end of the game, it not only played legal moves, it actually mated me. Granted I'm a terrible player and I was deliberately not reading ahead to see if it would be able to mate a weak player. My method was to tell it I wanted to play and then give my move in algebraic notation. It would respond with a move, then I would respond with another. After it beat me, I asked it to list all the moves... (read more)
I recently got access to Bing and asked it about the bullet in temporary gravity of varying duration. It does quite a bit better than GPT-3 though it's very verbose. It does do a search during it's answer but only to find the typical initial velocity of a bullet. It makes an error regarding the final velocity of the bullet after three seconds, but correctly determines that the bullet will go up forever if gravity lasts three seconds but will fall back to Earth if it lasts five minutes. Bold is me, everything else is Bing.
Okay, I’ve cleared the slate for a fresh start. What can I help you explore now?
Received message.... (read 1305 more words →)
It would cause a severe heat dissipation problem. All that energy is going to be radiated as waste heat and, in equilibrium, will be radiated as fast as it comes in. The temperature required to radiate at the requisite power level would be in excess of the temperature at the surface of the sun, any harvesting machinery on the surface of the planet would melt unless it is built from something unknown to modern chemistry.
In my particular case it wasn't really all that hard. I went to an extremely small school so classes weren't tracked the way they might be at a larger school. Since I was much better at taking tests than my peers I didn't really have to study to get A's on tests. We didn't even have all that much homework, though I guess it probably was hundreds of hours over the course of my high school career. I would have had to do that regardless though.
GPT-5 still loses in the typical way to tic tac toe. But GPT-5-thinking does much better. It blocks the initial fork. I tested it by opening another fork rather than playing for the optimal draw and it beat me. Though its COT before the final move seems very discordant. Chat below.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68999afc-5378-8004-a9f0-588c7e2a183d
EDIT: I probably didn't play optimally, but I let 5-thinking go first in 4x4x4 tic tac toe and it beat me.
https://chatgpt.com/share/689ab471-eca0-8004-ac34-b47b3af48c36