3 ms·
tldr: - Quality on task: For every task we tried, ChatGPT is still stronger than Vicuna on the task itself. MPT performed poorly on almost all tasks (perhaps w
by EmilStenstrom 3y ago
tldr:
- Quality on task: For every task we tried, ChatGPT is still stronger than Vicuna on the task itself. MPT performed poorly on almost all tasks (perhaps we are using it wrong?), while Vicuna was often close to ChatGPT (sometimes very close, sometimes much worse as in the last example task above).
- Ease of use: It is much more painful to get ChatGPT to follow a specified output format, and thus it is harder to use it inside a program (without a human in the loop). Further, we always have to write regex parsers for the output (as opposed to Vicuna, where parsing a prompt with clear syntax is trivial).
- Efficiency: having the model locally means we can solve tasks in a single LLM run (guidance keeps the LLM state while the program is executing), which is faster and cheaper. This is particularly true when any substeps involve calling other APIs or functions (like search, terminal, etc), which always requires a new call to the OpenAI API. guidance also accelerates generation by not having the model generate the output structure tokens, which sometimes makes a big difference.