4 ms·
The methodology behind this is severely flawed. Nothing can be concluded here. I wrote a reply to this on Twitter, which was liked by several members of OpenAI
by goodside 4y ago
The methodology behind this is severely flawed. Nothing can be concluded here.
I wrote a reply to this on Twitter, which was liked by several members of OpenAI’s staff (to the extent that counts as confirmation):
> If you don't reset the session before each question these results don't mean much — prior answers are included in the prompt and serve as de facto k-shot examples, forcing later answers to be consistent with whatever opinions were randomly chosen at the beginning. n=4, in effect.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- drstewart 4y agoAh, well if several OpenAI staff don't think there's any flaws with their model based on a Tweet, that proves it. Case closed. I saw a tweet that said Trump is innocent and several conservative lawyers liked it, so I guess that's settled.
- goodside 4y agoFortunately, I included the tweet itself so you can judge it on its own merits.