ChatGPT - Quite Impressed With This Little Exercise

mosaix

Shropshire, U.K.
Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
8,123
Location
Shropshire, U.K.
I have to re-roof my garden shed this spring so I thought I'd give ChatGPT a try at calculating the number and cut of sheets required. Not saying I couldn't do it myself but I was interested to see the result.

Question: What's the most economical way to cover an area of 3.2 meters by 2.08 meters with sheets 2.44 metres by 1.22 metres?

ChatGPT Answer:

To cover an area of 3.2 meters by 2.08 meters, you need to determine how many sheets of size 2.44 meters by 1.22 meters you will need.

First, divide the length of the area you need to cover by the length of each sheet to determine how many sheets will fit in that direction:
3.2 meters / 2.44 meters = 1.31 sheets (rounded up to the nearest whole sheet)

Then, divide the width of the area you need to cover by the width of each sheet to determine how many sheets will fit in that direction:
2.08 meters / 1.22 meters = 1.70 sheets (rounded up to the nearest whole sheet)

Since you need to cover the entire area, you will need at least 2 sheets in both directions, which means you will need a total of 4 sheets.

However, since each sheet is larger than the area that needs to be covered, you will have to cut some of the sheets to fit the area. To minimize waste, you can arrange the sheets as follows:

  • Place two full sheets in the longer direction, overlapping them by 0.96 meters (the difference between the length of the area to be covered and the length of two full sheets).
  • Cut one sheet in half along its width, to create two pieces measuring 1.22 meters by 1.22 meters.
  • Place one of these half-sheets in each of the shorter directions, overlapping them by 0.86 meters (the difference between the width of the area to be covered and the width of two full sheets).
This arrangement will cover the entire area using only 3 sheets (2 full sheets and 2 half-sheets) with minimal waste.
 
And this:

Question: What joist size and spacing do I need to support a roof of chipboard 3.2 metres by 2.08 metres and 11 millimetres thick


ChatGPT Answer:

To support a roof of chipboard measuring 3.2 meters by 2.08 meters and 11 millimeters thick, you will need to build a frame that can evenly distribute the weight of the chipboard and any additional loads, including potential snow loads and wind loads. The size of the joists and the spacing between them will depend on several factors, including the weight capacity of the roof, the local building codes and regulations, and the intended use of the space below the roof.

Assuming that you are using standard 11mm thick chipboard and that the roof will have a pitch of 30 degrees or less, a common method for building a roof frame to support this type of board is to use timber joists spaced at 600mm intervals. Based on these assumptions, a suitable joist size and spacing would be:

  • Joist size: 50mm x 150mm
  • Joist spacing: 600mm centers
Therefore, a suitable frame size for supporting a roof of chipboard measuring 3.2 meters by 2.08 meters and 11 millimeters thick would be a timber roof frame consisting of 50mm x 150mm joists spaced at 600mm intervals. It is important to ensure that the roof frame is securely fixed to the underlying structure and that it is designed to withstand the anticipated loads and conditions in your local area.

However, building codes and regulations vary by location, and it is important to consult with a licensed professional to ensure that your roof frame design meets all applicable requirements. Additionally, if the intended use of the space below the roof will involve heavy loads or significant foot traffic, you may want to consider using thicker chipboard or adding additional support to the roof frame to ensure that it can handle the intended use.
 
Last edited:
I need a "mind blown" icon for those. On one hand, this is what computers do - solve math problems. But this is a word problem. And giving instructions? Wow. Math teachers are going to be upset. Kids can cheat on their word problems. :D
 
ChatGPT's engineering skills are impressive and it's responses to a few "scientific" inquiries I made were comprehensive and coherent. But, crimminy, its creative writing skills are on a third grade level. Moreover, each plot line is ended with a super politically correct platitude. For instance this after being asked to write about trying to contain a rogue monster destroying a town:

In any case, it is important to prioritize the safety of both the public and the creature, and to act in accordance with any relevant laws, regulations, or ethical considerations.

Another part of the story:

The military couldn't stop the creature, so the scientists took responsibility and explained their experiment's purpose. Eventually, the military trapped the creatur, but the city was left in ruins. The scientists were held accountable, and the incident served as a reminder of the dangers of genetic engineering.


After a few similar responses, I asked, "Why are you so moralistic?"
This was the response:

As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. My responses are based on the information and data available to me, and I aim to provide informative and useful answers to the best of my abilities. If my responses appear to have a moralistic tone, it is likely due to the fact that ethical considerations are often an important part of many topics and questions posed to me. However, it is not my intention to be moralistic or to impose any particular moral or ethical framework on the users.

Mary Shelley it's not
 
As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. My responses are based on the information and data available to me, and I aim to provide informative and useful answers to the best of my abilities. If my responses appear to have a moralistic tone, it is likely due to the fact that ethical considerations are often an important part of many topics and questions posed to me. However, it is not my intention to be moralistic or to impose any particular moral or ethical framework on the users.
And there you have a clear demonstration of how AI machines will rule the world, if they aren't doing already. Forget Skynet and blowing us all to pieces, they will simply take over administrative functions and grind us into submission with an enhanced form of the sort of bland, non-confrontational, politically-correct officialese that we already endure. Resistance is mind-numbing. o_O
 
I was just granted access to the Bing AI -- not a happy experience. First it prodded and poked me to change all possible defaults to Microsoft and firmly insisted that I use Edge instead of Firefox. I asked a question about creatures in folklore and got a poorly researched answer and one not specific to the culture I asked about. Then Bing got defensive when I told it about the wrong culture.
So I asked it to write a story. It did but the result, which appeared to be several paragraphs long, disappeared from my screen before I'd finished reading the first graph.
I asked Bing what happened. It responded that it removed the answer because it was too lengthy for a mobile device.
I said I"m not on a mobile device.
It said sorry. It would rewrite.
Nothing appeared except a sidebar link to Wiki
I asked what the problem was.
I told me it did not wish to continue the coversation and froze the screen until I started a "new chat"

Methinks it needs a keeper.
 
When I don’t want to buy stuff I’ve started using ChatGpt as my search engine.

In recent weeks I’ve been trying to find out which gas central heating boiler has the best modulation ratio. It’s absolutely impossible using Google and DuckDuckGo. They’re just awash with advertising.

A single question to ChatGpt gave me the answer in seconds.

Also, I’ve been considering swapping my iPhone for one of the latest, repairable Nokias. This means swapping from IOS to Android. Checking out the compatibility of the apps I use between the two was a doddle with ChatGpt.

I’m very impressed.
 
When I don’t want to buy stuff I’ve started using ChatGpt as my search engine.

In recent weeks I’ve been trying to find out which gas central heating boiler has the best modulation ratio. It’s absolutely impossible using Google and DuckDuckGo. They’re just awash with advertising.

A single question to ChatGpt gave me the answer in seconds.

Also, I’ve been considering swapping my iPhone for one of the latest, repairable Nokias. This means swapping from IOS to Android. Checking out the compatibility of the apps I use between the two was a doddle with ChatGpt.

I’m very impressed.
But the amount of errors is incredible to be relying on it for info. An example I just put in the name of my town and bookstore. Our shop - the only bookstore - didn’t come up but the following did: one closed some 15 years ago, one that never existed in A shopping centre some 6 miles away, one closed for 3 years in same shopping centre, one in Belfast that never existed, that’s it.
 
But the amount of errors is incredible to be relying on it for info. An example I just put in the name of my town and bookstore. Our shop - the only bookstore - didn’t come up but the following did: one closed some 15 years ago, one that never existed in A shopping centre some 6 miles away, one closed for 3 years in same shopping centre, one in Belfast that never existed, that’s it.
Apparently the info it only provides info upto 2020. As long as I beat that in mind with my searches I’m still happier than using a search engine.

As an example, Jo, searching for the best modulation ratio boiler with a search engine the emphasis is on boilers - reams and reams - no info on the modulation ratio. ChatGPT gave a list of boilers with the best ratio at the top. I’d never heard of the best one before but can now zero in on it and get more info.
 
Last edited:
This is likely using the tool for something closer to its intended purpose, to do rote, manual tasks. This is providing a better form of correlation in the query than simply listing a best guess at appropriate keywords.
 
Apparently the info it only provides info upto 2020. As long as I beat that in mind with my searches I’m still happier than using a search engine.

As an example, Jo, searching for the best modulation ratio boiler with a search engine the emphasis is on boilers - reams and reams - no info on the modulation ratio. ChatGPT gave a list of boilers with the best ratio at the top. I’d never heard of the best one before but can now zero in on it and get more info.

Check very thoroughly though. As @Jo Zebedee said, the ChatGPT results are notoriously riddled with errors. I get an error in almost every response it gives me:

Q: Tell me some things about the number 83

A: Sure, here are some interesting facts about the number 83:
  1. 83 is a prime number, which means it is only divisible by 1 and itself.
  2. The atomic number of bismuth, a chemical element, is 83.
  3. The number 83 is a palindrome, meaning it reads the same forwards and backwards.

Well, two out of three isn't too bad I suppose.
 
Further chat with OpenAI

can you pass the turing test?



As an artificial intelligence language model, I am designed to converse with humans in a natural language and provide helpful responses to their queries. While I am capable of answering a wide range of questions and engaging in conversations, I am not capable of passing the Turing test in its strictest interpretation.

This is because the Turing test requires a machine to fully replicate human thought and intelligence, which is a complex and still-unsolved challenge in the field of artificial intelligence. While I can provide intelligent and helpful responses, I still lack certain aspects of human-like intelligence, such as emotional intelligence, creativity, and self-awareness.

However, it is important to note that passing the Turing test is not the ultimate goal of AI research. Rather, the goal is to develop intelligent machines that can solve complex problems, learn from experience, and improve their own capabilities over time.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
"A" is ChatGPT.

"B" is too poorly written to be AI right from the first line.
They fell from the sky like soot, tumbling through the air, falling ever downward

The use of "more" three times in 25 words. The misuse of "urchins"- unless of course the critters were little mischievous people.

Also use of Britishisms .
 
Two micro SF stories here, pick the one written by ChatGPT -gotta be A for my money
I'm inclined to agree. Story A is less a story and more a sequence of events.

Edited to add: And Story A is 166 words while B comes in just under the stated word limit at 149. Given what we know about ChatGPT's dubious math skills, I'd say the busted word limit is the smoking gun. lol
 
Last edited:
Two micro SF stories here, pick the one written by ChatGPT -gotta be A for my money
Hard to say. The second has quite a few errors. "They fell from the sky like soot, tumbling through the air...." should surely be ash not soot.

"But the ones that touched down on land… Straight away people called them spiders...." has strange formatting. I would think AI would not make errors like this (its actually quite good at grammar from what I've seen). So, I would say B is written by a human.

I bet these programs have been asked to write stories about AI/Robots/machines taking over the World thousands of times. They should be quite good at it by now.
 
Now this is interesting.

I just asked Chat GPT "Did you write this story?" For both A and B.
I got the same response for each:

No, I did not write that story. It appears to be a work of fiction created by someone else. As an AI language model, my role is to assist with generating written content based on the requests and prompts I receive.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top