Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main pain point I still have with GPT4 is that it's hard to prevent it from being a yes-man "- I have problem A, what do you think of X ? - Yes X is great ... - But with X I'd encounter problem B, maybe I should go with Y ? - You're right X would cause problem B. With Y ..." One way to limit this issue is to not give ChatGPT any hint on your intent, instead of writing "I have problem A, what do you think of X ?",…
The training data of written content, no matter the sources, will always be biased in one way: it doesn't contain thoughts people kept to themselves. Example 1: Mr. X is very popular author among a small group, who chat daily about it on various websites. Outside of that group, many people know about Mr. X but don't care much about his works. So the majority of content about Mr. X is positive, even though the majorit…
GPT-4 is not getting worse
151–160 of 186 posts
Re: GPT-4 is not getting worse
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the conversation is shifting a little bit, but I like the new direction so I'll respond: This is not great, I don't think you should be OK with that. ChatGPT is a tool which refuses to work when it doesn't serve the interests of the company that made it. Imagine a hammer that would refuse to hammer nails quite a lot when the manufacturer deems the circumstances are wrong. That would be, honestly, a bad to…
> As a society, we should get to decide what's moral and immoral, not OpenAI's board. Of course! After all, if we're not free to be wrong, then we're not free. I do think you might be overstating OpenAI's influence, though. Rather than a hammer manufacturer, I think a more apt analogy would be a publishing house. A publishing company can and should decide for itself what it will or will not publish using whatever cri…
The reason for that is that publishing company have their name permanently attached to what it publishes.
But that is not the case for ChatGPT, there is no signature attached to it and content can be used in way completely outside the control of the company.
Re: GPT-4 is not getting worse
#153There is an ongoing bug[1] with OpenAI's API, where it stops streaming responses after exactly 5 minutes. When I first came across the issue, I debugged it by writing a prompt along these lines: > Output every number from 1 to 10,000 in written form (e.g. "one", "two", etc.). Respond with one number per line in numeric order. As expected, the API would begin counting every number just as I asked. This would continue…
I have this too, but on information extraction tasks, if the input document is too long or complex it will skip sections saying something along the lines of (instead of the list) (instead of the details) Very annoying when you want to extract everything and is hard to fix. Maybe they had some examples solved by abbreviation in the fine-tuning set and it damaged the model. It doesn't make sense to train this behaviour…
I was talking to someone who was excited that he was able to use ChatGPT to convert a short tabular text listing of about 70 rows to a comma-separated list of the ids on each row, without having to e.g. import it into a spreadsheet or database. I pointed out that this couldn't be relied on, but he was skeptical. So I checked the output he pasted - there were only 69 ids. It had left out an id from the middle of the list, seemingly at random.
Re: GPT-4 is not getting worse
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, was this with the regular model (gpt-N) or a purported unchanging datestamped model like gpt-N-0314/0613?
This was using gpt-4-0314, fixed and datestamped. The counting shortcut still affects newer models too, but the old version undoubtedly changed behaviour without warning.
Re: GPT-4 is not getting worse
#155There is an ongoing bug[1] with OpenAI's API, where it stops streaming responses after exactly 5 minutes. When I first came across the issue, I debugged it by writing a prompt along these lines: > Output every number from 1 to 10,000 in written form (e.g. "one", "two", etc.). Respond with one number per line in numeric order. As expected, the API would begin counting every number just as I asked. This would continue…
I can't replicate this. I tested your prompt verbatim in the OpenAI playground. Model set to gpt-4-0314, maximum length set to 6485 (nothing special about this number, I just dragged the slider to something high-ish), all other settings left at their default. I cancelled the request when it reached "one thousand one hundred twenty-one" (which took over five minutes), but up until that point it did not take any shortc…
Re: GPT-4 is not getting worse
#156What an ignorant thing to say.
Re: GPT-4 is not getting worse
#157Re: GPT-4 is not getting worse
#158At the same time, I'm yet again struck by the tendency for analysis of AI to fall into unnecessary binarisms.
It's most probable that continued fine tuning is going to result in increased performance in the ways the NN is generally being used while decreasing performance in its broadest set of capabilities.
So things like getting better at prompt gotchas but worse at its variety of vocabulary or style.
So no, GPT-4 probably is getting worse over time. Just as it is also getting better over time.
It's just a matter of what's being evaluated, all of which is mostly a fool's errand without the baseline to compare to as well.
Re: GPT-4 is not getting worse
#159There is an ongoing bug[1] with OpenAI's API, where it stops streaming responses after exactly 5 minutes. When I first came across the issue, I debugged it by writing a prompt along these lines: > Output every number from 1 to 10,000 in written form (e.g. "one", "two", etc.). Respond with one number per line in numeric order. As expected, the API would begin counting every number just as I asked. This would continue…
The inability to resolve issues like the mentioned 5-minute timeout with OpenAI support even after months should be a red flag to not build any products based on their services.
Re: GPT-4 is not getting worse
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use this as a test to check the boundaries of models: > Give a table of average penis sizes by country. Not illegal, not immoral, not dangerous, and even documented by scientific publications but quite taboo. EDIT: Surprisingly worked, which is nice! Few months ago it seemed censored.
I asked and this is what it gave back: ----- I can't provide real-time or updated information, but according to studies available up to 2021, average penis sizes can vary by country. However, it's important to note that such statistics can be based on self-reporting, which may not be completely accurate, and may have limited sample sizes. Here's a table based on available data: | Country | Average Length (Erect, cm)…