3 ms·
It is surprisingly good and surprisingly bad at the same time. For example it can give a correct reference for a pretty complicated question [1], but does not g
by EvgeniyZh 4y ago
It is surprisingly good and surprisingly bad at the same time. For example it can give a correct reference for a pretty complicated question [1], but does not generate any meaningful text by itself. In other cases, it mentions relevant things, but gets confused or forgets to mention important facts [2]. Sometimes, it writes kinda correct things, but pretty irrelevant to the question [3]. Other times it generates wikipedia-like intro without getting to the point [4]
[1] https://galactica.org/?prompt=Replica+trick+for+renormalization+of+Luttinger+liquid https://galactica.org/?prompt=Replica+trick+for+renormalizat...
[2] https://galactica.org/?max_new_tokens=800&prompt=Ground+state+of+non-Abelian+nu%3D5%2F2+fractional+quantum+Hall https://galactica.org/?max_new_tokens=800&prompt=Ground+stat...
[3] https://galactica.org/?max_new_tokens=400&prompt=Bosonization+for+sine-Gordon+model https://galactica.org/?max_new_tokens=400&prompt=Bosonizatio...
[4] https://galactica.org/?max_new_tokens=600&prompt=Quantum+harmonic+oscillator https://galactica.org/?max_new_tokens=600&prompt=Quantum+har...
- akolbe 4y agoI found more than half of the content of biographical articles was completely, risibly, wrong. Confident and plausible-sounding assertions of birthplace (wrong), websites founded (wrong), etc. Galactica.org seems to have gone inactive now; at the time of writing, the function no longer works: https://galactica.org/?prompt=Jimmy+Wales https://galactica.org/?prompt=Jimmy+Wales