111–120 of 315 posts
The point is valid about performance over time changing, but using an LLM to see if a number is prime is a terrible use of the product. It does, of course, give you a correct answer if you have the wolfram alpha plugin installed, though.
Solving an IQ test is also not useful by itself, but it is a good benchmark of intelligence.
This is not well-established, and is subject to a great deal of dispute amongst experts in the field.
The author is claiming that "the latest version of GPT-4 did not generate intermediate steps and instead answered incorrectly with a simple "No." but that is not the case
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you signed up to pay for a beta service???? You can stop paying at any time.
If you're paying for it, it's a released product, not a beta. No matter how much a company wants to claim it's a "beta", it's simply not. The company just wants to be able to adhere to lower standards. OpenAI is hardly the only company that pulls these shenanigans, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure it wasn't just that the novelty wore off after a few hours of usage? I never really got into LLMs, but I must say at first it seemed like pretty cool stuff. OpenAI have repeatedly stated the model hasn't changed so how could this happen otherwise?
I mean, they could be lying. Or only talking about the API version and not the front-facing ChatGPT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Then why comment? I'm not trying to be an ass, but this is literally the only comment you've made in this thread. The linked article is a Twitter thread. If you don't have Twitter, fine, move on to the next thing you can actually comment on. Person A offers a reason why we may want to be slightly more skeptical than normal about this information. Person B suggests we can pretty easily look past that. Person C (you) i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, they could be lying. Or only talking about the API version and not the front-facing ChatGPT.
I feel like it would be a fairly large conspiracy by the OpenAI team though? In fact, what motive would they have to make the model dumber, really? If it gets out and you're right, I think it will cause major trust issues with the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fine tuning or not, its definitelly a proof one should not rely on it apart from very specific use cases (like lorem ipsum generator or something).
Just to be clear, you're saying that because they're tweaking GPT-4 to give more explanations of code, you shouldn't rely on it for coding? Obviously if that's your own preference, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong; but I think in general , most people wouldn't agree with that statement.