2 ms·
There is a more "pure" GPT-4 model, and they're considering giving access to it. It's just not as useful to humans. Sam Altman talks about it briefly in the rec
by nomel 4y ago
There is a more "pure" GPT-4 model, and they're considering giving access to it. It's just not as useful to humans. Sam Altman talks about it briefly in the recent interview on the Lex Fridman podcast.
- sho_hn 4y agoYes, I know, but this is presently not available via the API. What OP here means is that someone's talking about 3.5 without having tried something with 4, while accidentally misleading people into thinking that there's a special 4 distinct from the 4 available on ChatGPT that can do more. This is not the case. If you've used 4 via GPT, there's not a different version somehow - that we know about! - that is more capable or useful. If your interactions with 4 were via the ChatGPT frontend, you don't need to revisit your opinions now.
- nomel 4y ago> that we know about! - that is more capable or useful There's some nuance that makes your statement not completely accurate, and Sam talks about it briefly. ChatGPT is GPT-4 with additional training, and layers, on top of it. ChatGPT is more useful when used in a conversation mode, because it was trained based on how people liked the responses, in a conversation mode. Raw GPT-4 is harder to use, because it's not optimized for a back and fourth. It may be much more useful for other use cases, though.
- sho_hn 4y agoI was thinking about this while writing earlier, and kind of made the leap that we haven't yet found a way to make the model more useful than the additional training (or at least it's not been published), so technically it would be accurate to say it like this. However, I certainly agree with you that there could potentially be other utility you could derive from the base model with alternate steps. I appreciate your comment.