4 ms·
That's a very small sample size. Also, the scope of that question is rather broad. There are a number of techniques you could try to improve your results. But
by williamcotton 4y ago
That's a very small sample size. Also, the scope of that question is rather broad.
There are a number of techniques you could try to improve your results.
But I get the distinct feeling that you are not interested in improving your results as you have a motivation to "prove" something about LLMs.
- sarchertech 4y agoI have no strong interest either way. I played with chatgpt with no expectations going in, and I’ve played with it for many hours since. I have found it severely lacking for many purposes which people have said it’s suited. That’s it.
- goatlover 4y agoYes, but you have to know to improve the results, and the techniques don't alway work. I asked for a table of sports results from a specific date in the past that's easy to lookup, and it gave me wrong results. But they looked plausible. When I asked it about specific result, it gave me a completely misleading answer, but one that would be plausible to someone who doesn't know the sport very well. After informing it of the wrong answer, it corrected itself by giving a different wrong answer. I tried that a couple times with the same result. This becomes a problem when people start to treat LLMs as authoritative on facts.