4 ms·
We have a whole team of folks just watching for these to come out and then go evaluate them. Short answer: none of them do as well as the OG Davinci-003. Not e
by LASR 4y ago
We have a whole team of folks just watching for these to come out and then go evaluate them.
Short answer: none of them do as well as the OG Davinci-003. Not even close. Even the 3.5 Turbo models from OpenAI don’t do as well.
We throw some sophisticated prompts at them to attempt chain of thought
reasoning.
- inciampati 4y agoDo you have a citation for that?
- sirlunchalot 4y agowould be interested in that as well
- dotancohen 4y agoCould you expand on this a bit more? What types of prompts? What are your evaluation criteria? This actually sounds fascinating. Not unlike birdwatching! ))
- dr_dshiv 4y agoWe need open benchmarks, clearly. Know any projects in that space?
- joenot443 4y agoThat’s interesting - what about 4?
- simonw 4y agoWhat kind of things have you seen davinci-003 do better than 3.5 turbo?
- WinstonSmith84 4y agoThat's quite a confusing comment. `davinci-003` is from OpenAI, whereas ChatGPT is some sort of variants more "optimized" for chatting. Said differently, GPT3 or 3.5 is a customized version of `davinci-003`, made for chatting. Please don't ask me on the details, I don't know, but `davinci-003` is not an alternative to ChatGPT
- wahnfrieden 4y agoIt is an alternative. It’s just more expensive.
- sebzim4500 4y ago>but `davinci-003` is not an alternative to ChatGPT Why makes you believe that? In my testing davinci does better than gpt-3.5-turbo for most tasks.
- WinstonSmith84 4y agoI think people, and this article, is about suggesting alternatives (competitors) to ChatGPT. `davinci` is obviously not an alternative, ChatGPT is `davinci` made for chatting. As to whether davinci produces better responses than ChatGPT ... maybe? but that's a different question