3 ms·
Maybe my reading comprehension is awful, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article that the "ChatGPT" from the study is the worst at coding of the 3
by calibas 2y ago
Maybe my reading comprehension is awful, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article that the "ChatGPT" from the study is the worst at coding of the 3 models that people commonly use.
It seems relevant to mention that the "ChatGPT" in the article isn't the one most of us are using for coding.
- gtirloni 2y agoIt's not that relevant because there isn't a huge inherent difference between both. It's more of an evolutionary difference based on training data and small improvemens. The article mentions the model doesn't work well on things that it has not seen in its training data, which makes the whole argument of AGI spontaneously appearing given more data a bit unrealistic. We can discuss percentages in this or that task but the article points to the root cause which I think is inescapable.
- p1esk 2y agoThere’s a huge difference between 3.5 and 4. 3.5 is pretty much useless. 4 is very decent, it saved me countless hours at work.
- calibas 2y ago> The article mentions the model doesn't work well on things that it has not seen in its training data, which makes the whole argument of AGI spontaneously appearing given more data a bit unrealistic. It seems like we're talking about two different things. If you understand what ChatGPT is, and what it can and can't do, then there's no problem. It's a useful tool. If you think ChatGPT is AGI or it's going to replace actual programmers soon, then there's a problem. To me, it sounds like the issue is mostly unrealistic expectations.