3 ms·
4 handles this just fine. This is one of the most frustrating parts of these discussions. Making sweeping claims on the abilities of LLMs and the evaluator isn'
by famouswaffles 3y ago
4 handles this just fine. This is one of the most frustrating parts of these discussions. Making sweeping claims on the abilities of LLMs and the evaluator isn't even bothered to use the current state of the art.
- d--b 3y agoWhatever, man. Just did it with "Bing with GPT-4", not sure what that uses, and I refuse to pay OpenAI to do this so... Anyways, results are : Sure, let’s play Fizz Buzz with 3 and 7. Here are the first 15 numbers: 1, 2, Fizz, 4, 5, Fizz, 7, 8, Fizz, 10, 11, Fizz, 13, Buzz, Fizz In this game: Numbers divisible by 3 are replaced by “Fizz” Numbers divisible by 7 are replaced by “Buzz” Numbers divisible by both become “FizzBuzz” Would you like to continue or change the rules? It's better but still wrong. I tried with 2 and 7, it was wrong too.
- famouswaffles 3y agohttps://sl.bing.net/hafEGFSHcT6 https://sl.bing.net/hafEGFSHcT6
- latexr 3y agoIt’s also worrisome that someone who is making a specific point about the output of an LLM didn’t spend a couple of seconds to verify if their results aligned with their beliefs. If they didn’t do it in this situation, I have zero trust they do any kind of verification for other uses. The worse part is that is probably going to be the norm.