41–50 of 315 posts
I also feel like I'm getting dumber over time, not smarter, so perhaps GPT-4 is humanlike in that regard.
How’s life in Japan?
My favorites misstep from GPT-4 was when my friend asked it about the difference between vet bulb temperatures and dry bulb. You see that typo correctly (he was dictating): > The main difference is in what they're measuring. Temperature measurement at a vet is usually taken to determine an animal's body temperature, often done rectally or via the ear. It is direct and generally provides an absolute temperature value.…
Response from GPT-4 just now: > It seems like there's a bit of a typo in your question. I think you may be referring to the difference between "wet bulb" temperatures and "dry bulb" temperatures. [...]
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.
If it gets out and you're right, I think it will cause major trust issues with the product.
The product was magical!
I have not read the paper yet (in my backlog, here's the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.09009.pdf ), but it's important note that the paper is entitled "How Is ChatGPT’s Behavior Changing over Time?" not that it's necessarily "getting worse." Here's a more nuanced (not an AI clout chasing account) discussion by Arvind Narayanan (Princeton CS prof) about the results: https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/1681489…
Paper title: "How Is ChatGPT’s Behavior Changing over Time?"
Paper Abstract: "GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are the two most widely used large language model (LLM) services."
When are people gonna realize that GPT-4/3.5 != ChatGPT
As far as I can tell, the paper doesn't explain the methodology either, so hard to know if they're actually using "raw" GPT-4 or GPT-4 via ChatGPT...
I hoped that eventually people would realize they are vastly different, and your experience/results with be vastly different depending on which you use too. But that hope is slowly fading away, and OpenAI isn't exactly seeming to want to help resolve the confusion either.
>Having the behavior of an LLM change over time is not acceptable. By now this is actually funny to read. Never rely on another companies product to make your own product, without accepting things can change overnight and shut you down As Llama2 is self hosted, you can choose which iteration to host. Much better developer experience Edit: to be clear OpenAI is unprofitable, so is Reddit, so was Stadia. Building on to…
That's a pretty defeatist take. Surely if you pay for a service you should expect the provider to be making good faith efforts to provide the same quality of service over time? Natural degradation would be fine, but purposefully sandbagging the service so it gets worse because cheaper is unacceptable. That we have become numb to the point that we collectively accept such poor behavior on the part of vendors in concre…
So to be more precise, building a product on top of an unprofitable product means things will usually change for the worse (cost cutting) sooner or later
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mixture of experts approach was found to be inferior than a straightforward transformer. However, researchers discovered that MoE models give substantially better results when guided by fine-tuning. My guess is that GPT-4 was an experiment to prove out that theory at huge scale and I also suspect that its performance astonished OpenAI as much as everyone else.
If it was an experiment I'd like to know why I'm still paying for access to something claiming to be it.