5 ms·

In most subjects I have found ChatGPT to be fairly reliable. Are there specific scenarios that you have found concerning? I think perfect reliability is not a

In most subjects I have found ChatGPT to be fairly reliable. Are there specific scenarios that you have found concerning? I think perfect reliability is not absolutely necessary. None of the human teachers that I have learned from were perfectly reliable even in their area of expertise. Thankfully, skepticism seems to be an innate human trait.

shadowfox 4y ago
> In most subjects I have found ChatGPT to be fairly reliable. Not the OP, but I am very curious what subjects you have experimented with and whether you used any special prompt techniques. My experience has been quite on the contrary: on the few subjects I have some understanding of, ChatGPT appears to do fine for basic questions and attempts to summarize concepts at a high-level, but any attempt at drilling in to specifics seem to cause it to hallucinate quite a bit, particularly with regards to concrete facts or citations or anything of that sort.
- FlyingAvatar 3y ago
  Most of my questioning have been practical questions relating to computer science / programming and language learning (English / Spanish). I have asked a lot of other general knowledge questions, but nothing exceptionally deep. Can you give more detail as to the hallucinations that you found?
vharuck 4y ago
Prompt: Cite three important academic journal articles about cybersecurity, including DOI numbers Response: 1. Anderson, R., & Moore, T. (2006). The Economics of Information Security. Science, 314(5799), 610-613. DOI: 10.1126/science.1130992 2. Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World. WW Norton & Company. DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2015.1093541 3. Fung, B., & Graham, M. (2019). AI and cybersecurity: Safety, privacy, and security in the age of AI. IEEE Security & Privacy, 17(3), 10-14. DOI: 10.1109/MSEC.2019.2904199 #1 is good. #2 is a book (the DOI points to nothing). I can't find any evidence #3 exists. I don't consider this a difficult question to ask of cybersecurity students, let alone teachers.
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  Were you using GPT-3.5 or GPT-4? Apparently GPT-4 is much more accurate and natural in its responses.
  - FlyingAvatar 3y ago
    At the moment, this will happen in GPT-4 as well.
- FlyingAvatar 3y ago
  I guess I see ChatGPT as a very broadly knowledgeable, yet fallible person, not as a database. It would be a very rare person who could come up with the data you asked for off the top of their heads. Granted, it would be much better if it could tell you "I don't know", rather than hallucinate facts. As far as it being able to explain base concepts in a conversational manner and helping bridge gaps in my own understanding, it has been very helpful to me. I'm sure there are certain subjects where this will work better than others, but I would guess especially for most K-12 classwork, ChatGPT even with its current warts would be a net gain for many students in helping to increase their understanding just by talking with it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
curiousgibbon 4y ago
ChatGPT does not get full credit on the homework I create, even when the topic is some standard-ish algorithm with significant presence in the training data. Or maybe I'm just a bad prompt engineer.
- FlyingAvatar 3y ago
  What grade level is the homework you are creating?
  - curiousgibbon 3y ago
    MS in computer science. The specific question I was surprised about was a O(log (m+n)) algorithm for finding the median of the union of two sorted arrays. This is in-scope for elite leetcoders and similar. The code ChatGPT generated had some issues resulting in out of bounds array accesses. It also wasn't clear if the algorithm was the desired log(m+n) one or a simpler but inferior log(m) + log(n) one. Was the model was confused and blended parts of different approaches? Is that statement too anthropomorphic for a LLM?
ChancyChance 3y ago
If you read the news, it is libeling people. https://www.reuters.com/technology/australian-mayor-readies-worlds-first-defamation-lawsuit-over-chatgpt-content-2023-04-05/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/australian-mayor-readies-... EDIT: I commented that is often wrong when talking about RF analog circuits or motor control, but this is a rabbit hole. It's like a bad textbook.

shadowfox 4y ago

> In most subjects I have found ChatGPT to be fairly reliable. Not the OP, but I am very curious what subjects you have experimented with and whether you used any special prompt techniques. My experience has been quite on the contrary: on the few subjects I have some understanding of, ChatGPT appears to do fine for basic questions and attempts to summarize concepts at a high-level, but any attempt at drilling in to specifics seem to cause it to hallucinate quite a bit, particularly with regards to concrete facts or citations or anything of that sort.

FlyingAvatar 3y ago
Most of my questioning have been practical questions relating to computer science / programming and language learning (English / Spanish). I have asked a lot of other general knowledge questions, but nothing exceptionally deep. Can you give more detail as to the hallucinations that you found?

vharuck 4y ago

Prompt: Cite three important academic journal articles about cybersecurity, including DOI numbers Response: 1. Anderson, R., & Moore, T. (2006). The Economics of Information Security. Science, 314(5799), 610-613. DOI: 10.1126/science.1130992 2. Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World. WW Norton & Company. DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2015.1093541 3. Fung, B., & Graham, M. (2019). AI and cybersecurity: Safety, privacy, and security in the age of AI. IEEE Security & Privacy, 17(3), 10-14. DOI: 10.1109/MSEC.2019.2904199 #1 is good. #2 is a book (the DOI points to nothing). I can't find any evidence #3 exists. I don't consider this a difficult question to ask of cybersecurity students, let alone teachers.

AussieWog93 4y ago
Were you using GPT-3.5 or GPT-4? Apparently GPT-4 is much more accurate and natural in its responses.
- FlyingAvatar 3y ago
  At the moment, this will happen in GPT-4 as well.
FlyingAvatar 3y ago
I guess I see ChatGPT as a very broadly knowledgeable, yet fallible person, not as a database. It would be a very rare person who could come up with the data you asked for off the top of their heads. Granted, it would be much better if it could tell you "I don't know", rather than hallucinate facts. As far as it being able to explain base concepts in a conversational manner and helping bridge gaps in my own understanding, it has been very helpful to me. I'm sure there are certain subjects where this will work better than others, but I would guess especially for most K-12 classwork, ChatGPT even with its current warts would be a net gain for many students in helping to increase their understanding just by talking with it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

curiousgibbon 4y ago

ChatGPT does not get full credit on the homework I create, even when the topic is some standard-ish algorithm with significant presence in the training data. Or maybe I'm just a bad prompt engineer.

FlyingAvatar 3y ago
What grade level is the homework you are creating?
- curiousgibbon 3y ago
  MS in computer science. The specific question I was surprised about was a O(log (m+n)) algorithm for finding the median of the union of two sorted arrays. This is in-scope for elite leetcoders and similar. The code ChatGPT generated had some issues resulting in out of bounds array accesses. It also wasn't clear if the algorithm was the desired log(m+n) one or a simpler but inferior log(m) + log(n) one. Was the model was confused and blended parts of different approaches? Is that statement too anthropomorphic for a LLM?

ChancyChance 3y ago

If you read the news, it is libeling people. https://www.reuters.com/technology/australian-mayor-readies-worlds-first-defamation-lawsuit-over-chatgpt-content-2023-04-05/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/australian-mayor-readies-... EDIT: I commented that is often wrong when talking about RF analog circuits or motor control, but this is a rabbit hole. It's like a bad textbook.