3 ms·
They ruined GPT-4? How? I thought they were basically the same models, just multimodal
by nar001 2y ago
They ruined GPT-4? How? I thought they were basically the same models, just multimodal
- rvnx 2y agoGPT-4o is different from GPT-4, you can "feel" it is smaller model that really struggles to do reasoning and programming and has a much weaker logic. If you compare to Claude Sonnet, just the context window considerably improves the answers as well. Of course there is no objective metrics, but from a user perspective I can see the coding skills are much better in Anthropic (and it's funny, because in theory, according to benchmarks it is Google Gemini the best, but in reality is absolutely terrible).
- toxik 2y agoHave to say I agree with this, 4o is dumber in my subjective experience.
- jstummbillig 2y ago> GPT-4o is different from GPT-4, you can "feel" it is smaller model that really struggles to do reasoning and programming and has a much weaker logic. FWIW according to LMSYS this is not the case. In coding, current GPT-4o (and mini, for that matter) beat GPT-4-Turbo handily, by a margin of 32 points. By contrast Sonnet 3.5 is #1, 4 score points ahead of GPT-4o.
- whymauri 2y agoI'm a firm believer that the best benchmark is playing around with the model for like an hour. On the type of tasks that are relevant to you and your work, of course.
- patrickdward 2y agoI've also found GPT-4o to be subjectively less intelligent than GPT-4. The gap especially shows up when more complex reasoning is required, eg, on macroeconomic questions or other domains in the world where the interactions are important or where subtle aspects of the question or domain are important.