>> This article is almost entirely speculation, and I don't believe it. In support of your skepticism, I'm quoting here the main passage where the article is s

>> This article is almost entirely speculation, and I don't believe it. In support of your skepticism, I'm quoting here the main passage where the article is speculating about the change in performance: A common consensus was that GPT-4 was able to generate outputs faster, but at a lower level of quality. Peter Yang, a product lead for Roblox, took to Twitter to decry the bot’s recent work, claiming that “the quality seems worse”. One forum user said the recent GPT-4 experience felt “like driving a Ferrari for a month then suddenly it turns into a beaten up old pickup”. So all we have to go with is "a common consensus", what it "seems", what someone "felt", and so on. Nothing concrete at all. Which shouldn't be a surprise. Empirical investigations of large language models can either be cheap (in time and money) and perfunctory, or systematic and expensive, and most users don't have the budget, or the inclination, for systematic evaluations. Users form an impression about the performance of LLMs from little experience and then they change their minds, again from a little experience. That's nothing to base anything on.