Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

news.ycombinator.com

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

#21
It's sort of inevitable that anyone operating such a service has to live 24/7 at the absolute efficient frontier of extreme quantization and/or other internal secret sauce to just barely keep the quality up while driving FLOPs to the absolute limit: it would be irresponsible to just say `bfloat16` or whatever and call it good.

Add to that the constant need to keep the "alignment"/guardrails/safety/etc. (by which I mostly mean not getting slammed on copyright) which has been demonstrated to bloat "system prompt"-style stuff which is going to further distort outcomes with every turn of the crank and it's almost impossible to imagine how a company could have a given model series do anything other than decay in perceptual performance starting at GA.

"Proving" the amount of degradation is give or take "impossible" for people outside these organizations and I imagine no mean feat even internally because of the basic methodological failure that makes the entire LLM era to date a false start: we have abandoned (at least for now) the scientific method and the machine learning paradigm that has produced all of the amazing results in the "Deep Learning" era: robustly held-out test/validation/etc. sets. This is the deep underlying reason for everything from the PR blitz to brand "the only thing a GPT does" as being either "factual"/"faithful" or "hallucination" when in reality hallucination is all GPT output, some is useful (Nick Frost at Cohere speaks eloquently to this). Without a way to benchmark model performance on data sets that are cryptographically demonstrated not to occur in the training set? It's "train on test and vibe check", which actually works really well for e.g. an image generation diffuser among other things. There is interesting work from e.g. Galileo on using BERT-style models to create some generator/discriminator gap and I think that direction is promising (mostly because Karpathy talks about stuff like that and I believe everything he says). There's other interesting stuff: the Lynx LLaMa tune, the ContextualAI GritLM stuff, and I'm sure a bunch of things I don't know about.

I've been a strident critic of these companies, it's no secret that I think these business models are ruinous for society and that the people running them have with alarming prevalence seriously fascist worldviews, but the hackers who build and operate these infrastructures have one of the hardest jobs in technology and I don't envy the nightmare of a Rubik's Cube that keeping the lights on while burning an ocean of cash every single second: that's some serious engineering and a data science problem that would give anyone a migraine, and the people who do that stuff are fucking amazing at their jobs.

Re: Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

#22

The market functions as an incredibly efficient and democratic mechanism for price discovery, much like how feedback shapes the development of AI. When users express concerns about the declining quality of AI responses, it highlights an essential aspect of this system: user experience acts as a form of market feedback. Just as the market adjusts prices based on supply and demand, AI systems should evolve and improve…

That is possible. Another possibility is that they are gradually watering it down in order to segment the market in the future

Re: Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

#23
post #7

One of the things I've personally observed is that ChatGPT has become very verbose these days. Previously, it used to return the right amount of information in most contexts, and I can't get that behavior back with prompts asking it to be concise, because then it'll just omit important parts, prioritizing providing a extremely high-level summary that elucidates very little. No opinion on Claude because I've not had a…

+1 on verbosity - it happened when switching from 4t to 4o I think, and personally I don’t like it. Should be fizable with system prompt though.

Can't we all just go test the responses with old chats?

Re: Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

#24

One of the things I've personally observed is that ChatGPT has become very verbose these days. Previously, it used to return the right amount of information in most contexts, and I can't get that behavior back with prompts asking it to be concise, because then it'll just omit important parts, prioritizing providing a extremely high-level summary that elucidates very little. No opinion on Claude because I've not had a…

Agreed on both counts. I have stopped using ChatGPT due to its verbosity, bloating the price. Despite the prompt I cannot get it to cut to the chase. Claude has been much better in this regard. There was a very distinct change in ChatGPT behavior even using the same model towards verbosity. The cynic in me supposes it’s to bloat revenue.

I suspect it’s because LLMs are smarter when they are verbose. The more they water down the model they serve the more they have to dial up the verbosity to compensate.

Re: Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

#25
post #22

The market functions as an incredibly efficient and democratic mechanism for price discovery, much like how feedback shapes the development of AI. When users express concerns about the declining quality of AI responses, it highlights an essential aspect of this system: user experience acts as a form of market feedback. Just as the market adjusts prices based on supply and demand, AI systems should evolve and improve…

That is possible. Another possibility is that they are gradually watering it down in order to segment the market in the future

The parent doesn't even leave open room for your possibility.

> If the quality dips, it's a signal that something in the 'market' of AI responses needs adjustment, whether it's in training data, algorithms, or user interaction strategies.

Re: Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

#26
post #4

> If there is indeed no degradation how could the perceived degradation be explained? By being disproportionately impressed previously. Maybe in the early days people were so impressed by their little play experiments they forgave the shortcomings. Now that the novelty is wearing off and they try to use it for productive work, the scales tipped and failures are given more weight.

I'll anecdotally say that Copilot doesn't give me solutions that work nearly as well lately. It used to be the case that I could have it generate whole classes by prompting only the method signatures. Now it can hardly generate a single function without needing fixes for things like hallucinated variables (in its own code!) or invalid syntax. Even just getting it to output the correct number of closing braces/parens has gotten noticeably worse.

Re: Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

#27

The market functions as an incredibly efficient and democratic mechanism for price discovery, much like how feedback shapes the development of AI. When users express concerns about the declining quality of AI responses, it highlights an essential aspect of this system: user experience acts as a form of market feedback. Just as the market adjusts prices based on supply and demand, AI systems should evolve and improve…

I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into your comment or if you're just saying that companies should listen to customer feedback. Because literally any product "should continuously adapt to meet the needs and expectations of its users". Does anyone want something that doesn't meet their needs or expectations?

Re: Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

#28
post #4

> If there is indeed no degradation how could the perceived degradation be explained? By being disproportionately impressed previously. Maybe in the early days people were so impressed by their little play experiments they forgave the shortcomings. Now that the novelty is wearing off and they try to use it for productive work, the scales tipped and failures are given more weight.

When chat gpt first came out I was able to feed it some text to parse and then create python scripts to process similar texts and create csv and excel files from those. I was able to create a basic working python scripts in 1-2 hours. And very complex scripts over a couple of days. I recently tried to do the same with chatgpt again and simply am unable to. I wish I had saved the exact text I fed into chat gpt then so…

ChatGPT has a query history. Can't you fish the first queries you made on your account?

Re: Ask HN: Has degradation in the quality of ChatGPT and Claude been proven?

#30

It's sort of inevitable that anyone operating such a service has to live 24/7 at the absolute efficient frontier of extreme quantization and/or other internal secret sauce to just barely keep the quality up while driving FLOPs to the absolute limit: it would be irresponsible to just say `bfloat16` or whatever and call it good. Add to that the constant need to keep the "alignment"/guardrails/safety/etc. (by which I mo…

Quantization aware training produces good results for fp8 quantization. Someone who is going all the way down to 4 bit quantization in a production environment must be really desperate, because it makes batch processing harder. The additional dequantization operations slow the inference down. Dequantizing fp8 to bfloat16 is just a few bit shifts plus "and" masking.
Post reply on HN