4 ms·
As I point out, the critique is simply that the paper isn't very good. In fact I'd go as far as to say its egregiously bad, even if the conclusion is 'correct'
by krona 3y ago
As I point out, the critique is simply that the paper isn't very good. In fact I'd go as far as to say its egregiously bad, even if the conclusion is 'correct' in as far as something was measured and they reported it.
- arp242 3y agoThe conclusion of "GPT-4 can't even compete against low-quality human effort like that found on MTurk" seems alright. The article would be better if it didn't claim to compare "humans", because it doesn't – or at least, not in the common sense definition of "comparing humans vs GPT-4". But to be honest I think that's a bit pedantic. It would be different if it had found that GPT-4 outperformed MTurk, but if GPT-4 can't compete against MTurk on these tasks, then I don't think it will fare better against you or me with our full attention.