3 ms·
Wonder if this would hold for GPT 4, and if GPT training on the tuning/human feedback was for more 'conversational' responses. Since recently, it does seem lik
by FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Wonder if this would hold for GPT 4, and if GPT training on the tuning/human feedback was for more 'conversational' responses.
Since recently, it does seem like GPT 4 is a little more 'dry' and guarded in its responses. A few months ago it would give me some sassy answers, now it is more business like.
- 7thaccount 3y ago"Surprisingly, ELIZA, developed in the mid-1960s by computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum at MIT, scored relatively well during the study, achieving a success rate of 27 percent. GPT-3.5, depending on the prompt, scored a 14 percent success rate, below ELIZA. GPT-4 achieved a success rate of 41 percent, second only to actual humans" GPT-4 did better. I think the article stated 3.5 was like that by design.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoYep missed this " And like GPT-3.5, GPT-4 has also been conditioned not to present itself as human"
- ngcc_hk 3y agoActually most of the 4 is better. Wonder why 1 is not.