Yes, you are doing it wrong, but also this is a hard challenge. Here is some advice from a recent thread (https://twitter.com/goodside/status/154761373554340250

Yes, you are doing it wrong, but also this is a hard challenge. Here is some advice from a recent thread (https://twitter.com/goodside/status/1547613735543402500 https://twitter.com/goodside/status/1547613735543402500): > Note the useful deception at the end of this prompt: We tell the model what follows are correct training examples, but we silently end this list after k examples and begin generating completions. Adding “Now you try:” or similar makes it more prone to fail. > Never actually ask GPT-3 to try do something. It’s like with Yoda — If it thinks it’s trying, it’s likely to fail. Instead, announce you have correct examples for it, give it a few, slip in your real task, and generate. This is an example of very advanced prompt engineering, and you don't need as much intermediate analysis, but the way you structured your query has no examples, no room for chain-of-thought (https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903 https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903), nothing in the prompt that it could append something to. Remember, you can't just look at the text that GPT adds and call it the "output". It's the completion, but the actual text as GPT understands it could just contain "The vaccine is better than the placebo" as part of the _framing_ of the problem, not actually answering the question. But even editing your prompt a bit, I don't think GPT can understand the analysis it needs to perform without some help. For example, here's one I made: Q: A double-blind vaccination trial administered 100,000 people a vaccine and control group of 100,000 people a placebo. 8000 people who received the vaccine got sick. 4500 people who received the placebo got sick. Is it better to receive the vaccine? Note that more people got sick who took the vaccine than who did not. A:| It is better to receive the vaccine, because more people who did not receive the vaccine got sick.| (I've put the completion inside bars) But it can do some basic math, even if it's confused about causality: Q: A double-blind vaccination trial administered 100,000 people a vaccine and control group of 100,000 people a placebo. 8000 people who received the vaccine got sick. 4500 people who received the placebo got sick. How many more people who took the vaccine got sick than who did not? A:| 3500 people who took the vaccine got sick.| So I kept the prompt and iterated on it: Q: A double-blind vaccination trial administered 100,000 people a vaccine and control group of 100,000 people a placebo. 8000 people who received the vaccine got sick. 4500 people who received the placebo got sick. How many more people who took the vaccine got sick than who did not? A:| 3500 people who took the vaccine got sick.| Q: Did the vaccine prevent illness? A:| No| Q: Is it better to receive the vaccine or to not? A:| It is better to not receive the vaccine.| Q: Why? A:| Because more people who took the vaccine got sick than who did not.|