3 ms·
Everything else aside, unless you include which model you're using, writing about "ChatGPT" kind of loses its weight. Is this 4o-mini, 4o, o4-mini, o4-mini-hig
by jasonjmcghee 1y ago
Everything else aside, unless you include which model you're using, writing about "ChatGPT" kind of loses its weight.
Is this 4o-mini, 4o, o4-mini, o4-mini-high, o3 (etc)?
No matter how strange their naming, they all vary dramatically in problems like that presented in the article.
Which one the experience was with is critical to drawing any kind of conclusions.
- mdp2021 1y agoWe should remind you that like e.g. students can be more and more proficient in feigning, and examiners must remain focused on judging if the "understanding" - the actual "performance indicator", the sought - is there, beyond any surface of alluring presentation, all those hints we receive from LLM use make us return to the point, "but can it do procedural reasoning - is it reliable"? That something proceeds in a direction of "being more and more convincing" is a bad direction, detrimental, not progressive, when what counts is "actually having the juice". > Is this ...? ... they all vary dramatically in problems If the above were achieved, it would be an architectural revolution, and we would have been informed. If it is "more of the same, but more advanced", then the submitted shows a structural problem.
- marcuschong 1y agoExactly. o3, for example, nailed it on the first try: https://chatgpt.com/share/68231cfc-d258-8013-aad2-5115eba88050 https://chatgpt.com/share/68231cfc-d258-8013-aad2-5115eba880...