Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cryptizard t1_jdqtbnd wrote

Reply to comment by turnip_burrito in Why is maths so hard for LLMs? by RadioFreeAmerika

It's really not. Just pick any two large numbers and ask it to multiply them. It will get the first couple digits of the result right but then it just goes off the rails.

1

turnip_burrito t1_jdse82g wrote

I've done this like 8 or 9 times with crazy things like 47t729374^3 /37462-736262636^2 /374 and it has gotten them all exactly right or right to 4 or 7 sig figs (always due to rounding whicj it acknowledges).

Maybe I just got lucky 8 or 9 times in a row.

1

Cryptizard t1_jdsg57p wrote

How does "exactly right" square with "4 sig figs." That's another way of saying wrong.

1

turnip_burrito t1_jdsninw wrote

Why even point this out?

If you reread my reply, you would see I said "exactly right OR right to 4 or 7 sig figs". I didn't say 4 or 7 sig figs was exactly right. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misread the reply.

1

Cryptizard t1_jdsooyh wrote

I'm sorry, from my perspective here is how our conversation went:

You: GPT4 is really good at arithmetic.

Me: It's not though, it gets multiplication wrong for any number with more than a few digits.

You: I tried it a bunch and it gets it the first few numbers right.

Me: Yeah but the first few numbers right is not right. It is wrong. Like I said.

You can't claim you are good at math if you only get a few significant digits of a calculation right. That is not good at math. It is bad at math. I feel like I am taking crazy pills.

1

turnip_burrito t1_jdspnv6 wrote

It's good at math, it just has a rounded answer.

Most of the time it was actually absurdly accurate (0.0000001% error), and the 4 sig fig rounding only happened once or twice.

It is technically wrong. But so is a calculator's answer. The calculator cannot give an exact decimal representation either. So is it bad at math?

0

Cryptizard t1_jdsq1sy wrote

No, I'm sorry, you are confused my dude. Give two 6 digit numbers to multiply and it only gets the first 3-4 digits correct. That is .1-1% error. I just did it 10 times and it is the same every time.

3

turnip_burrito t1_jdsqq3f wrote

I just tried a couple times now and you're right. That's weird.

When I tried these things about a week and a half ago, it did have the performance I found. Either I got lucky or something changed.

0