3 ms·
If you add the chat/conversational features on top (there are countless tutorials for that, one is included with langchain and others extended that one), the ‘v
by tluyben2 4y ago
If you add the chat/conversational features on top (there are countless tutorials for that, one is included with langchain and others extended that one), the ‘very cheap’ goes out the window fast. For it to have memory, people use clever summarizing and embeddings, however, you end up sending 1000s of tokens every time you interact. To get gpt3 to create similar long winded responses, you have use tricks which also cost a lot of tokens.
Out of the box, gpt3 feels miles away from chatgpt when you try things naively (which chatgpt happily answers, while gpt3 probably will just repeat you or write nonsense). So the ‘raw’ you start with is correct; once you are happy with the results, the cheap is out the window.
- muzani 4y agoThe way I see it, ChatGPT is the "low code" edition of GPT. You wouldn't do a feature-by-feature comparison of both as they're for different things. The question is on content generation, which GPT-3/davinci excels at. ChatGPT does chat and memory better. Also the long winded responses are already in the nature of text-davinci-003, though it faces similar problems with refusing to do certain types of content.