4 ms·
I've definitely run into this personally. But even even I explicitly tell it to not skip implementation and to generate fully functional code, it says that it u
by jimmywetnips 2y ago
I've definitely run into this personally. But even even I explicitly tell it to not skip implementation and to generate fully functional code, it says that it understands but continues right into omitting things again.
It was honestly shocking because we're so used to it understanding our commands that a blatant disregard like that made me seriously wonder what kind of laziness layer they added
- _giorgio_ 2y agoThey should offer different models at this point. This laziness occurs over and over, so why bother with omniscience.
- j45 2y agoThe laziness layer seems to be to be an assistant but not a replacement or doing the task.
- lyu07282 2y agoI suspect they might be worried it could reproduce copyrighted code in certain circumstances, so their solution was to condition the model to never produce large continuous chunks of code. It was a very noticeable change across the board.
- s-lambert 2y agoI thought it would be for performance, since it doesn't output all of the code then each reply is shorter/quicker. Although you can still ask it to generate more of the code but that introduces some latency so there's less overall load.
- satvikpendem 2y agoPeople hypothesized that OpenAI added laziness in order to save money on token generation, since they are burning through GPU time.
- joenot443 2y agoThis has been my conclusion too. Given it’s a product I’m paying monthly for it seems super regressive to have to trick it into doing what it used to do just fine.
- satvikpendem 2y agoI assume even the paid version is still a loss leader, 20 dollars per month is nothing in GPU time compared to how much they must be spending to generate the output.
- whywhywhywhy 2y agoI'd probably pay triple to go back to the pre-"Dev Day" product at this point
- jumpCastle 2y agoYou can use older models with the api.