[Kiro]

He was acting Chancellor. It's like saying a red apple is not an apple. It's a technicality. The fact that we have a completely reasonable explanation to why GPT-4 includes him in the list and you guys still make it sound like the AI is a complete moron is just hilarious to me.

[dllthomas]

A "red apple" is an apple that is red. An "acting officeholder" is not an officeholder who is acting, but a person who is acting as if they have the office (... with institutional support - Norton was not acting Emperor).

It's a technicality, but a valid technically and it's a technical question. I agree that it's wrong in a relatively small and surprisingly human way, but it's wrong in a way that including a red apple amongst apples is not.

[RandomLensman]

There is no "Acting Chancellor", that is a poor translation of what the job is. There is only a Chancellor, not an "Acting Chancellor" - you have to trust that the Germans and their institutions kind of know who was Chancellor and who was not.

The machine is a complete moron for not being able to get basic data from basic sources right.

[Kiro]

> Scheel became acting Chancellor

> Chancellor of Germany, Acting, 7 May 1974 – 16 May 1974

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel

[RandomLensman]

I know, but the German wikipedia gets it right: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheel

(And so does the German Chancellor: https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/kanzleramt/bundeskanzler-...)

There is zero ambiguity about who was Chancellor and who was not.

[Kiro]

It says "geschäftsführender Bundeskanzler".

Even on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_Germany he's listed as "Vice Chancellor Walter Scheel served as acting Chancellor from 7 May to 16 May 1974" between 4 and 5.

There's obviously some ambiguity to it considering we are two humans discussing this with a claimed discrepancy between English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia, but your conclusion is still that the AI is spitting nonsense.

[RandomLensman]

There is zero ambiguity under German as law as to who was a Chancellor and who was not. Not a matter of wikipedia etc.

The way to be Chancellor is through article 63 of the Grundgesetz, while Scheel was put into the caretaker role via article 69. This explains it a bit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizekanzler_(Deutschland) - Scheel was only taking on the function, not the office.

This kind of giving some machine the benefit of the doubt when in fact there is zero ambiguity is really a path that makes me think we will have mostly machines designed for marketing and other non-critical things.

[Kiro]

He's also included in this list between 4 and 5: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeskanzler_(Deutschland)#De...

When you need to bring up article 63 and 69 of the Grundgesetz to prove that the claim is ludicrous, maybe the reasonable thing to say instead is "I understand why you might think that".

[fnordpiglet]

So the English Wikipedia author is a moron, or is there ambiguity when describing the role in English?

[RandomLensman]

No. I think the problem starts with that the role Scheel had isn't given a name in the article of the basic law that creates it.

So either need to be fully descriptive (e.g., something like fulfilling the functions of the Chancellor, while not ever having the office) or it will be also open to being misunderstood.

The issue here really is that the German succession doesn't ever transfer the office, but only the function (which is different to the US, for example). So here Scheel followed Brandt, but not into the office. Only someone having the office is a Chancellor and there is a specific way to that office.

[fnordpiglet]

I see, so when you said the machine is a moron for getting it wrong, the English editor isn’t a moron for getting it wrong due to ambiguity in the law?

I think there’s also a functionally useful way to describe someone’s role as what it functionally is even if it’s not legally that. You’re point is super well taken, if the machine is intended to be a fact oracle, it’s awfully loose and adds a lot of interpretation in areas of ambiguity.

I would say IMO that’s specifically the power of these machines. An awful lot of human endeavor doesn’t require literalism but semantic approximation and interpretation that machines were literally incapable of. Its weird language is enough to achieve that, but I think it’s overly restrictive to assert a broad lack of utility in critical systems. An awful lot of critical systems actually need more “probabilistic” interpretation than literal fact oracling.

[naasking]

> The machine is a complete moron for not being able to get basic data from basic sources right.

I'm just going to point out that you're calling an AI moronic for not getting this right when a bunch of humans are also disagreeing with you. Frankly, this really undermines your case that this is an AI failure.

[RandomLensman]

What is wrong with me wanting my machines to stick to the actual definitions?