this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
197 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

34975 readers
123 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DPRK_Chopra@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ChatGPT is 3.5, 4 is just called GPT4

[–] SirGolan@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm that's incorrect. ChatGPT (if you pay for it) does both.

[–] DPRK_Chopra@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm talking about the models and how they're written about in the literature. I don't care how OpenAI brands their products.

From the paper itself:

For the additional 2000 SO questions, ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo API is used.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.02312.pdf

[–] SirGolan@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh ok! Got it. I read it as you saying ChatGPT doesn't use GPT 4. It's still unclear what they used for part of it because of the bit before the part you quoted:

For each of the 517 SO questions, the first two authors manually used the SO question’s title, body, and tags to form one question prompt3 and fed that to the Chat Interface [45] of ChatGPT.

It doesn't say if it's 4 or 3.5, but I'm going to assume 3.5. Anyway, in the end they got the same result for GPT 3.5 that it gets on HumanEval, which isn't anything interesting. Also, GPT 4 is much better, so I'm not really sure what the point is. Their stuff on the analysis of the language used in the questions was pretty interesting though.

Also, thanks for finding their mention of 3.5. I missed that in my skim through obviously.

[–] DPRK_Chopra@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For sure, no worries. I had the same questions as you when reading it. Fwiw, the paper is really kind of sloppy. I think it's maybe a case of poor students not wanting to pay for GPT-4? Maybe they'll clean it up and respond to some of the criticisms when it comes out of draft, but it doesn't seem like very rigorous scholarship to me.

[–] SirGolan@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah I think you're right on about the students not being able to afford GPT4 (I don't blame them. The API version gets expensive quick). I agree though that it doesn't seem super well put together.