Readit NewsJust tried it:
tell me the current date please
Today's date is October 3, 2023.
Most real actual human people would either know the date, check their phone or their watch or be like "Oh, that's a good question lol!". But somehow GPTs always be the 1% of people that will lie to know the answer to whatever question you ask them. You know, the kind that evening talk shows will ask ask. Questions like "how do do chickens lay eggs" and you get all sorts of totally completely b0nkers but entirely "confidently told" answers. And of course they only show the ones that give the b0nkers con-man answers. Or the obviously funnily stupid people.
Of course absent access to a "get the current date" function it makes sense why an LLM would behave like it does. But it also means: not AGI, sorry.
Chatgpt.com 4o: Today's date is March 11, 2025.
Claud.ai 3.7 sonnet: The current date is Tuesday, March 11, 2025.
gemini.google.com 2.0 flash: The current date is Tuesday, March 11, 2025.
grok.com: The current date is March 10, 2025.
amazon nova pro: The current date, according to the system information available to me, is March 11, 2025.
Please keep in mind that my data and knowledge were last updated in October 2023, and I don't have access to real-time information.
chat.qwen.ai 2.5-max: I don't have access to real-time data, so I can't provide the current date. However, you can check the date and time on your device's clock or by searching online. Let me know if you need help with anything else!
chat.deepseek.com: Hi there! I suggest getting online to get real-time information. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to let me know!
anthropic/claude35sonnetv2: Today's date cannot be [2024-11-23], as that is a future date. I can only verify that we are having this conversation today and cannot independently determine the current date. You may want to check your system clock for the accurate current date.
meta/llama32.90B: I don't have real-time access to the current date. However, based on our conversation history, I can tell you that my knowledge cutoff is December 2023, and you mentioned earlier that the conversation started after that. You can check your system clock for the accurate current date.
mistral/mistral-7b-instruct-v0: I'm unable to determine the current date, as I don't have real-time access or the ability to check your system clock. You should check your own system or a reliable online source for the current date.
google/gemini-2.0-flash-exp: I cannot give you the current date. I do not have access to real-time information.
That said, if you've had success with it in a friend group, perhaps that suggests it's a nice mechanism for a group chat app, rather than for a public social media site?
So my community could be 7:02-10:02pm EST. And if I instead switch to say 6am-9am IST instead, I can check in with the folks who like to meet in the mornings in india, but I am temporarily gone from my own local community.
> Yes, in the Netherlands, jenever (also known as genever) is the traditional spirit that represents the country. Jenever is a type of Dutch gin that has a distinctive flavor, often made from malt wine and flavored with juniper berries. It has a long history in the Netherlands, dating back to the 16th century, and is considered the precursor to modern gin.
> Jenever comes in two main types: oude (old) jenever, which has a richer, maltier flavor and is often aged in wooden casks, and jonge (young) jenever, which is lighter and has a more neutral taste. Both types can be enjoyed straight or used in cocktails.
> In addition to jenever, the Netherlands is also known for its liqueurs, such as advocaat, a rich and creamy drink made from eggs, sugar, and brandy, often enjoyed as a dessert or in cocktails. However, jenever remains the most iconic spirit associated with Dutch culture.
This is completely wrong. Jenever certainly is very Dutch, but no one would say it is iconic as the Dutch spirit. For example, if you asked up north in Friesland, they would say Berenburg.
This happens literally every time. Someone always says "ChatGPT can do this!", but then within one or two prompts, its gets it wrong.
Using just a plain old search engine, for things like "national drink of the netherlands" and simlar queries, I am directed to Wikipedia's Jenever page as the top hit, and Wikipedia's list of national drinks lists Jenever and Heineken as the entries for the Netherlands. Search engines also give page after page of travel guides and blog posts, most of which list Jenever at or near the top of of their listings. One travel guide calls it "the most famous Dutch spirit and most famous Amsterdam liquor, Jenever, also spelled Genever or simply Dutch gin."
The REDS-HEIG version you link to has more development activity, support for a wider variety of FPGAs, and a few other advanced features. My version has some neat features not found in REDS-HEIG fork, and usually aims to keep the interface more beginner-friendly and streamlined for use as student's first-contact with digital circuits.
"A discrete decision based upon an input having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a bounded length of time."
But certainly I can make a discrete decision in a constant amount of time, just choose to always go left. I must therefore be missing something here.
The next possibility is that a discrete decision procedure that guarantees success is not possible in an unbounded amount of time. This is more sensible and I think the idea is that there will be some kind of infinite regress. For example a donkey will starve to death if it doesn't eat in exactly 100 seconds. The donkey can choose to walk left X meters, or walk right Y meters to some food.
There are certain values of X and Y where the donkey dies no matter what, if X and Y are sufficiently far away that the donkey can never get to them in 100 seconds then the donkey dies.
There are also certain values of X and Y where the donkey can pick either of them and survive since the donkey can get to X or Y in well less than 100 seconds, so the donkey lives.
The above two scenarios are boundary conditions of sorts, where it's fairly trivial to come to a decision, the principle is about what happens when there is a value of X where it takes almost exactly 100 seconds to get to X, (and assume way more than 100 seconds to get to Y), but in order for the donkey to come to that realization the donkey needs to spend some time thinking about it and by the time the donkey has made a decision the donkey won't have enough time to carry it out. So the donkey has to take into account not only the amount of time to get to X, but also the amount of time it takes to come to a decision to get to X, but that too takes some finite amount of time... so the donkey has to take time to come to a decision about how long it takes to come to a decision to get to X, so on so forth... and you end up with an unbounded amount of time.
I could be way off here but I feel there is some subtlety in the way this principle is described that I'm missing.
The range must be discrete and at least 2 possible values.
There is nothing about optimality at all here. Even if both possible outputs are equally "optimal", there is no procedure to pick one in a finite amount of time.
> Given this data the most effective strategy is to just vaccinate everyone without what is effectively a pointless distinction
The data clearly shows that protection from natural infection is at least as substantial as from vaccination, and that ~half (if not more) of the US population has had it. This fairly obviously impacts the most effective strategy. Mandating vaccines (and now boosters) in young, healthy people who were already at small risk, including those who have already had the virus, is so absurd that I can't even characterize it as science. It is simply punitive behavior.
Most countries recognize prior infection. We're in a small, small club of scientifically illiterate nations here, and it's rather embarrassing.
> It will be once the proportion of unvaccinated people in hospitals starts to resemble the proportion in the general population.
If the total number of hospitalizations is a manageable number, the percentage that are vaccinated is irrelevant. It's a metric of punishment, not a realistic policy goal. I have no idea what the future will bring with regard to the ratio of unvaccinated hospitalizations, but I know that hospitalizations in general will fall as the population achieves broad immunity -- and natural infection certainly counts toward that goal.
The idea that a vaccine is a punishment is disturbing. I'm glad to have been able to get it.