4 ms·
Have you asked GPT-3.5 about something as simple as the classification of sailfish? Wake up.
by arcturus17 4y ago
Have you asked GPT-3.5 about something as simple as the classification of sailfish? Wake up.
- rafaelero 4y agoAre you going to keep repeating this forever? This paper is not even using GPT-3.5, it's using PaLM.
- arcturus17 4y ago> This paper is not even using GPT-3.5, it's using PaLM. Where are you getting this? From the excerpt: "We set out to investigate whether GPT-3.5 (Codex and InstructGPT) can be applied to answer and reason about difficult real-world-based questions" I am going to be repeating that ChatGPT cannot classify popular animals correctly as many times as needed. I've been using the app daily and it's quite frequently factually wrong about many other topics, too (for example, programming, or history).
- rafaelero 4y agoOh, I mistook this paper for the one that was released more recently from DeepMind + Google. [1] [1] Can large language models reason about medical questions? https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.13138 https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.13138
- dekhn 4y agoElsewhere on this thread, you're rude to me whilst I made an intelligent comment in good faith. Based on your current comment (arguing with people over technical details), may I suggest you perhaps back off a bit and not be so aggressive about "being right"?
- rafaelero 4y agoSorry, I did think you were not doing a good faith argument. But if you are, then let me ask you: if you believe that reaching expert's opinion is not evidence of reasoning then what are medical students doing for 6 years at college?
- dekhn 4y agoThere's an enormous amount of memorization of details. But, they also learn to reason... and explain their reasoning. More importantly, simply regurgitating what experts say (within-class performance) isn't interesting because it's not going to convince anybody that it's going to make good decisions.