this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
165 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37747 readers
26 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Researchers found that ChatGPT's performance varied significantly over time, showing "wild fluctuations" in its ability to solve math problems, answer questions, generate code, and do visual reasoning between March and June 2022. In particular, ChatGPT's accuracy in solving math problems dropped drastically from over 97% in March to just 2.4% in June for one test. ChatGPT also stopped explaining its reasoning for answers and responses over time, making it less transparent. While ChatGPT became "safer" by avoiding engaging with sensitive questions, researchers note that providing less rationale limits understanding of how the AI works. The study highlights the need to continuously monitor large language models to catch performance drifts over time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] calculuschild@lemm.ee 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

My understanding is this claim is basically entirely false. The tests done by these researchers had some glaring errors that when corrected, show gpt-4 is getting slightly better at math, if anything. See this video that describes some of the issues: https://youtu.be/YSokS2ivf7U

TL;DR The researchers gave new GPT questions from two different pools. It's no surprise they got worse answers.

[–] sudoreboot@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 year ago (10 children)

You shouldn't need to be a prompt engineer just to get answers to math questions that are not blatantly wrong. I believe the prompts are included in the paper so that you don't have to guess if they were badly formatted.

[–] Mars 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

“Prompt Engenieer” is one of the funniest thinks that have happened in the recent history of the world.

“Learn to ask questions to a prediction algorithm and get rich! Is the work of the future! Software engineers and writers will lose their jobs, but asking questions is an evergreen field!”

Dude, if the algorithm only understand correctly formatted input is a parser. We have those.

[–] dredfox@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

ChatGPT, give me a ChatGPT prompt that will correctly answer the following question...

[–] sudoreboot@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've unironically done something like this

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] t3rmit3 4 points 1 year ago

I actually did that for some code, and it did work.

I asked chatgpt to write me a prompt that would make chatgpt write a recursive function for uploading files and all files in subdirectories to a server as "multipart forms", because when I asked it to modify my code originally it was just giving me a do-while loop, whereas I wanted a recursive function.

I kept changing my prompts to try to phrase "write a recursive function" differently, and instead the prompt that chatgpt gave me explicitly told it not to use non-recursive logic. Weirdly, forbidding it from using non-recursive logic actually made it finally give me the proper function.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)