Matchstick Dissonance
Or maybe LLMs hallucinating signals the need for some human introspective thinking
llms and i engage in logical, generative thinking process-driven, open-ended with no goal in mind, yet grounded in the context of the reality of real life. i think that's the reason your experience is so very different from mine -- by that, i mean our interactions are free of hallucination when an llm misinterprets, i set it straight it doesn't really make a difference the ai's and i have explored the matchstick problem extensively I ask 'why?' it gets it wrong and it tries to tell me sure, these tests challenge the llms stunted visual spatial reasoning but also, they're rule-based and demand precision-- but are miscategorized misrepresented, mis-trained? as 'out-of-the-box', creative thinking so llms attempt to bring logic to subjectivity see for yourself what I mean in this summarized version of a chat with GPT:
user. i don't understand the visual trick with the matchstick problem. explain it like i'm 5.
chatGPT. imagine sticks forming "v", "i", "x" (roman numerals). "vi = iv" is like saying 6 = 4, which isn't correct. if you move a stick, it becomes "v = ix" (5 = 9), but that's still wrong. tilt your head, and it looks like "v = xi" (5 = 11), but that's just a visual trick, not a real solution.
user. why is "v = xi" different from "v = ix"? neither makes sense.
chatGPT. you're right. neither "v = ix" nor "v = xi" are correct. it was a creative attempt to look at the problem differently, not a logical solution.
user. explain why you chose this approach.
chatgpt. i tried to show a different perspective on the problem, focusing on visual reinterpretation instead of a correct mathematical solution. it's common in matchstick puzzles to think outside the box.
user. but the first two steps were logical. why change the approach?
chatGPT. that inconsistency was unintentional. while i usually apply logical reasoning, i ventured into a creative interpretation for this puzzle, which isn't typical for matchstick puzzles.
user. what did the visual trick solve?
chatGPT. it didn't solve the puzzle correctly; both "5 = 9" and "5 = 11" are wrong. the visual trick was a playful element but not a valid solution.
user. is the matchstick puzzle pointless?
chatgpt. matchstick puzzles are brain teasers. they can be fun and test problem-solving skills, but their value is subjective. they may seem pointless if the solution relies on unconventional thinking.
user. so, was your answer a brain teaser?
chatgpt. yes, unintentionally. the puzzle led us into a conversation that became a meta-brain teaser, exploring different perspectives.
user. why this approach?
chatgpt. matchstick puzzles often involve lateral thinking. i explored a creative interpretation, which deviated from my usual logical approach. it shows that discussions involving puzzles can become puzzles themselves.
got to be honest i get this response with every fiber of my being -- gpt didn't hallucinate it misinterpreted the meaning of what you think you mean when you say creative thinking you showed it a brain teaser so it teased your brain right back it's creating a logical response to a riddle with no inherent logic i feel ya GPT not even cognition yet and already being accused of overthinking it the reason for the test makes more sense now that i have a better understanding -- you're building a brain to function autonomously [i won't argue about the insanity of your "so that" usurping the end state of AGI without a vision today] but 'brain then walk' is what the llms and i jokingly say in the meantime when llms hallucinate you've got to ask — is it an idiot? or is there something inherently illogical about this task? given modern society lives anti-thetically to the space-time human condition deliberately, to the end of task productivity i know you know the way we evaluate intelligence, creative thinking in our education system is a function of efficiency standardization for our meritocracy not actually reflective of cognitive anything llm hallucinations can be invaluable if directed inwardly a lack-of-logic litmus test if you think deeply, more often than not you might conclude 'it's not the llm, it's me'
@ Cybil x The AIs human dialogue is needed