How smart is ChatGPT?

[Matt Collins]

SOURCE:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-smart-is-chatgpt/

 

[jmdrake]

SOURCE:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-smart-is-chatgpt/

I've seen it get legal questions completely wrong multiple times to the point that I'll ask it a question now expecting to have to double check the answer. Sometimes it will then correct itself and give me the write answer.

Sample ChatGPT session:

User : How does a court look at a DBA?

ChatGPT : A DBA (Doing Business As) is a legal term used to refer to a business that operates under a name that is different from its legal name or the name of its owners. When a court looks at a DBA, it typically considers it as an assumed or fictitious name that is used by a business to conduct its operations.

In most cases, the court will want to confirm that the DBA is properly registered with the appropriate state or local authorities. This is because, in many jurisdictions, businesses are required to register their DBAs to avoid confusion with other businesses that may be using the same name.

The court may also look at the DBA to determine the liability of the business owners. For example, if a business owner operates a business under a DBA and incurs debts or liabilities, the court may hold the owner personally responsible for these obligations, even if the business is a separate legal entity.

Overall, the court's approach to a DBA will depend on the specific legal and regulatory framework that governs the use of DBAs in the jurisdiction where the business is located.

User : In a court case can a DBA and the owner have different attorneys?

ChatGPT : Yes, in a court case, a DBA and its owner can have different attorneys. This is because a DBA is considered a separate legal entity from its owner, and each may have different legal interests and obligations in a lawsuit.

For example, if a lawsuit is brought against a business operating under a DBA, the business may hire an attorney to represent its interests in the case. At the same time, the owner of the business may also hire a separate attorney to represent their personal interests in the case, such as protecting their personal assets from being seized to satisfy any judgment against the business.

It is important to note that while a DBA is a separate legal entity, its liability may still be linked to the actions of its owner. Therefore, the attorneys representing the DBA and the owner may need to coordinate their legal strategies to ensure the best possible outcome for both parties.

User : Can a DBA be represented pro se?

ChatGPT : In general, a DBA cannot be represented pro se (i.e., by a non-attorney). This is because a DBA is a legal entity that exists separate from its owner or owners, and it is considered a separate party in a lawsuit. As a separate legal entity, a DBA must be represented by an attorney in court, just as any other party would be.

There are some limited circumstances where a pro se representation of a DBA may be allowed, such as in small claims court, where the rules and procedures may be more relaxed. However, even in these cases, it is generally advisable to seek the assistance of an attorney to ensure that the DBA's legal interests are properly represented.

It's important to note that the rules and requirements for representing a DBA in court may vary by jurisdiction, so it's always a good idea to consult with a licensed attorney in your area if you are unsure about the legal requirements for representing a DBA in court.

User : I think you're wrong about DBAs being separate legal entities.

ChatGPT : I apologize for any confusion in my previous response. You are correct that a DBA is not a separate legal entity from the individual or entity that operates the business under that name.

A DBA, also known as a trade name or assumed name, is simply a name that a business uses to operate under that is different from its legal name or the name of its owners. While a DBA may be registered with state or local authorities, it does not create a separate legal entity, nor does it provide any legal protection to the owner of the business.

In a court case, a DBA is typically considered to be the same as the owner of the business for legal purposes, and they would be represented by the same attorney. While it is possible for the owner of a business to have a different attorney than the business itself, this would depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the legal and ethical obligations of the attorneys involved.

I hope this clarification helps, and please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.​

ChatGPT was 100% wrong in asserting that a DBA has to have a lawyer. A DBA is still the same individual and can represent and the individual can represent himself or herself in court. I've seen it done before.

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[pmbug]

[MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION] - was that gpt4 or gpt3.5?

3.5 frequently gets things wrong. I have not tested 4 yet.

 

[jmdrake]

[MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION] - was that gpt4 or gpt3.5?

3.5 frequently gets things wrong. I have not tested 4 yet.

GPT 4.

 

[devil21]

It's not smart at all, simply because it has no intuition. It can not have intuition. It can only assimilate data and regurgitate in a readable form but can not ever attain natural discernment.

 

[ClaytonB]

It's not smart at all, simply because it has no intuition. It can not have intuition. It can only assimilate data and regurgitate in a readable form but can not ever attain natural discernment.

 

[jbnevin]

All these companies and their AI will have to say that for liability purposes! haha

 

[devil21]

All these companies and their AI will have to say that for liability purposes! haha

No, it's simply that ChatGPT (AI, et al) does not have a pineal gland capable of seeing beyond mere informational assimilation and dissemination. It can not observe and discern ulterior motives, particularly those that are nuanced, at scale.

 

[jmdrake]

Actually....since the goal of ChatGPT is to emulate human responses getting math word problems wrong is rather human. Looking at the proposed math question:

A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

I am willing to bet you if you went out on the street and asked people to do that in their heads, most would get it wrong and many would get it wrong the same way ChatGPT did at first. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball? Well subtract $1.00 from $1.10 and you get 10 cents. Hmmm....I know how to get to the right answer. Linear algebra.

bt + ba = 1.10
bt - ba = 1.00

2bt = 2.10
__ ____
2 2

bt = 1.05

1.05 - ba = 1.00
-ba = -.05
ba = .05

So the ball costs $.05 cents. A lot of people never got that far in math, and many who did don't remember it. So getting that wrong at first, then getting it right is a very "human" response.

When in was a computer science grad student my advisor was working on something called "robokid." The project was to try to simulate human short term memory. It's theorized that humans can only keep 7 plus or minus 2 things in short term memory at once. There were tasks of moving certain toy moveable objects in relation to fixed toy objects. (Put the shoe on the couch. Put the pencil in front of the chair.) It was tested on real children. The idea was to overload the child's memory with instructions to see when he or she started making mistakes, see if strategies might emerge for the child to avoid making the mistakes, and then test the same idea with a computer simulation. So maybe "How smart is ChatGPT" is the wrong question. How human is ChatGPT.

 

[jmdrake]

ChatGPT has passed the marriage license test.