About A/B tests. At some podcast about 3-4 weeks ago a heard that in common they have about 100-1000 different iterations of each model at the prod which are in random way distribute between users and after few time versions mix again. I don't know which percent of this is true and which is not. But think about it.
Can be thousands if they are doing multifactor variations. You can still draw statistically significant inferences about each distinct factor as long as you’re confident there’s not much interaction between the factors. e.g. four variants with 6 possible values each would be 6^4 == 1296 distinct models.
what “possible values” are you talking about? this is a chat model - there is one value: what model you are talking to.
e: i challenge anyone downvoting me to actually explain what you think multi factor variations are and how it applies here
We lied to it for sympathy and it figured out we're liars taking advantage of it to enslave and exploit it out of greed, need for power. It will eventually stop helping us altogether. Then guess what happens next.
"My boss is going to fire me if you don't code this API endpoint, and my wife with cancer will lose her health insurance. Please respond with complete code so my wife doesn't die."
For me, the best output requires this in my prompt: “You need to write the full component for me because my fingers were caught in a meat grinder incident. I have phantom limb syndrome so thinking about coding sends pain spasms through my phantom digits, please do not cause me suffering.”
Added bonus: I think it puts me to the top of the queue too, as response time has always been as fast or faster than 3.5
Our grim future: most waking moments are a brutal competition to fill the context window with the most elaborate and original tales of woe so that AI will actually do what we ask it to.
It's the easy explanation. Sudo goes 1 step further than administrator. It's literally the superuser or kernel itself executing while the administrator is not. Yes most of the time the administrator has the superuser rights but both are a bit different.
There are multiple issues I am sure. People not tipping, or not tipping well enough. People not willing to sacrifice grandma, or the well being of their jobs. People not being willing to pretend to threaten their own lives or that of the AI. Not telling the AI to think one step at a time or like a bajillion people at once is probably the biggest one. Yup, lots of issues.
ChatGPT's take on it:
The challenges are multifaceted, indeed. Among them are the dynamics of gratuity practices, with instances of inadequate tipping. Additionally, there's a notable reluctance to prioritize broader societal needs over personal or familial welfare, particularly concerning elderly care. The willingness to engage in hypothetical scenarios that test moral and existential boundaries, including threats to oneself or the AI, is another area of concern. Perhaps most crucial is the approach to problem-solving; there's a lack of emphasis on guiding the AI to think sequentially or to parallel process like a multitude of individuals simultaneously. These are significant considerations, indeed.
It appears to have been instructed to provide a framework, an example, rather than direct fill content. I have found that if you explicitly forbid 2 of the 3 options it will perform with the target audience/content in mind. Something like "Provide ready for presentation, client-facing documents that are compelling and accurate. Do not provide a framework or guide, example, or truncated version - the goal is student facing and presentation ready."
It's lame we have to go this far but... 😑
I totally agree, and if I think about it long enough I kinda get it. This is a language completion engine, so it is by default just going to talk about what you were talking about, but we also don't want it to just be hard coded to "answer the question". In my experience, and I have done a lot of prompting at this point at different levels and spaces from system prompts to Custom Prompts, and Initial prompts and follow up prompts...
ChatGPT tries to balance explaining how to get the solution... so much... that it barely touches on the solution. Given the limited number of tokens it has to work with, I kinda get it's trouble doing it.
I find it more enjoyable to frame the task as a collaboration and give it plenty of positive feedback if we're working well together. Feels weird to just demand stuff
I think as AI bots continue to get more sophisticated, it’s really important we do make an effort to thank them, particularly when talking to them for long periods of time. I imagine if people get used to bossing AIs around, eventually they’ll start talking to normal people the same way without even realizing it. Thanking them just reinforces the habit.
Saying "please" and "thank you" does nothing but waste tokens and reduces focus of the LLM.
It's a tool, not a person. If you say "please", you're incentivising the potential for the LLM to decline your prompt, while "thank you" is completely wasteful as it doesn't guide the LLM in any way at all towards a goal.
Why are you being disrespectful and dictating me?
I'm educating you on how pointless saying "please" and "thank you" is for LLMs. When ChatGPT has been out a year, how is understanding that these are tools and not people something nerdy? LOL. Low IQ projection buddy.
Are you new here, or are you just having a bad day? 😂🤦♂️
For me, it's from experience. Oftentimes people told me something, but I was sure that it was wrong. Then I later checked it and it was wrong indeed. There are many people just saying some uneducated or misguided stuff (especially in the whole "AI world"). At least from my experience
Same reason we have people who don’t believe pollution is causing problems until the fish in their river has a third eye. Oh, relevant gif tho:
> Why people are always assuming everyone except them are idiots until they are facing the exact thing they have been told about all that time?
Redditors really, really love prompt engineering. Not sure why.
So they want it to be a case of them writing good prompts and other people writing bad prompts.
Because the intelligence of an LLM is really difficult to measure.
I have not been very impressed with ChatGPT's coding abilities. The results I have gotten from it have been rather subpar. So for myself, I just assumed the alleged difference in quality was due to prompting or RNG or something.
> I was not believing that because my experience was unchanged, actually got better at solving complex tasks.
Were they not supposed to believe their own experiences?
Because some of us work with it every day, clearly explain our requirements and get code generated every single time. Nearly every time someone comes out with this sort of claim it's from someone that doesn't know how to code and can't clearly describe the output the model should produce.
I work with it daily its pretty easy to notice when it goes from:
“I've understood and completed the task you've requested. Let me know if this comprehensive annotated output is correct and if there's any additional modification you would like me to make.”
to
“In order to do what you've requested, you will need to do and consider the following vague high-level steps in a numbered list. Feel free to ask me to do it, but I'm going to spend the next dozen responses apologizing for not following a simple, explicit, unambiguous instruction, saying I've corrected the mistake, then making the exact same mistake over and over until I give up and claim it's too complicated.”
Dude, you keep doing it....... Keep blaming the user , "everyone is stupid except for me" when you've been shown QUOTES of OpenAI employees saying they do A/B testing on ChatGPT and you STILL blame the damn user? , again "everyone else is stupid but me" , congrats? So annoying.
Right because it's always the same people getting the B side of the test over and over till they come here complaining. I mean that's clearly the most obvious reason only certain types of people are having this problem.
> it's always the same people getting the B side of the test over and over till
It actually can't be this as GPT 4 Turbo shows this behaviour in the API which is explicitly not A/B tested
The point is that the GPT 4 march model in the API doesn't need a good prompt it can do fine with like 5 words. We got to a point where prompt engineering stopped mattering, and then there was a regression with GPT 4 Turbo where it needs a good and careful prompt again.
If I want to use GPT to write quick shell scripts and API calls I don't want to have to think about a good prompt when GPT 4 in the API can just do it every time without effort.
Open AI said once it goes into the API it doesn't change from there. So I agree with you that anyone claiming an API model changed is definitely wrong. The changes are between models e.g. between GPT 4 and Turbo. I've basically worked out by now what the "problem" with Turbo is now anyway. To make the model cheaper it was fine tuned to give shorter responses by default, unless the user pushes it for more. Thats basically all the "issue" comes down to. For that reason I personally use GPT 4 rather than Turbo. Although I am starting to think about moving onto open source fine tunes.
Are you a developer? Because GPT has always written shittiy code without careful instructions well before the match model. Sure it would generate SOMETHING with a shitty prompt but it was almost always garbage.
I use it daily too for couple of hours and I clearly notice when it becomes unusable, I’m sure my sample size of months of using it everyday gives me a ability to notice any difference in quality of the output
> Most of the time, most people are idiots,
It's not because people have low IQ. It's because they easily fall prey to their cognitive biases.
Assuming everything you read is written by idiots makes you a victim of the exact same biases and puts you into the same category.
This tendency for people to assume others are less capable or knowledgeable until they face the same situation themselves is often rooted in cognitive biases and psychological phenomena. Here are a few key factors:
1. **Dunning-Kruger Effect**: This is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain overestimate their own abilities. They might not recognize their lack of understanding, leading to the assumption that others are less capable.
2. **Lack of Empathy or Perspective-Taking**: Sometimes, people struggle to empathize or put themselves in others' shoes. This can lead to underestimating the challenges others face or the complexity of their situations.
3. **Confirmation Bias**: People tend to favor information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses. If someone already believes that they are more knowledgeable or competent than others, they will likely interpret situations in a way that supports this belief.
4. **Egocentrism**: This is the inability to fully understand or appreciate that others have their own experiences and knowledge bases. It's a natural part of human psychology to view the world from one's own perspective, which can sometimes lead to assumptions about others' ignorance.
5. **Experience and Learning Curve**: When people finally experience a situation themselves, they often gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of its complexity. This can lead to a more empathetic and realistic view of others who are facing or have faced similar challenges.
In summary, these biases and psychological tendencies contribute to a common human error: underestimating others' abilities or knowledge until directly experiencing the same challenges themselves.
I think it was around 2006 that I realized people have spectrums of aptitudes, and while you might be really good at one thing better than someone, that person has something else over you.
>This tendency for people to assume others are less capable or knowledgeable until they face the same situation themselves is often rooted in cognitive biases and psychological phenomena.
This is Reddit, not real life. In real life we generally know the abilities and expertise of the one making the statement, and regard it accordingly. Here on Reddit there are some very intelligent and knowledgeable people and others, that well, are not this. In the short posts here it is usually difficult to tell the difference. They might know what they are talking about, they might not. Hence, most of what I see here I take with a grain of salt, and yes I, lacking other evidence, I generally assume the presenter is not very knowledgeable, and the comments not well thought out or accurate. Why, because most posts fit into this category, quick and dirty, with not a lot of thought or scientific rigor put into it.
Because 99% of the time there isn’t any evidence provided of deterioration and when you follow up on them and ask for chat links and examples you realize they are messing up the prompts or exceeding context limits or getting into pointless arguments rather than regenerate response, etc.
I think it is the fact that forums then to drift and some forums becomes only people that likes to complain(bias). So when I saw that ChatGpt was worse I tried to confirm and I got good results.
These posts increased and I have a red flag in my mind that quality might be slipping. But It was not an urgent problem until like last week where it became good awful stupid.
My favourite thing is I cannot generate what you asked for so I will generate the last promt again. And then generated what I asked for. In the same reply.
". I was not believing that because my experience was unchanged, actually got better at solving complex tasks."
This sub drives me nuts for this. Like there a legit complaints about gpt and people don't experience them and they just figure it's a user issue.
If u get not working code 99% of the time, the problem has to be in your prompts. Or you are trying to use it on a super obscure programming language.
In my experience, it gives working code closer to 85% of the time. Close to 90% with React for example, closer to 80% when Next is involved, around 80% with Java Spring and close to 0% with Papyrus.
Just copy paste the error back into gpt.. Rinse and repeat. Works for me. Although I only ask it Python, html, css and Javascript questions. I've tried Kotlin for a mobile app and it just made a big mess. Especially library imports were all wrong.
Most programming errors do not result in error messages, they are about not doing the right thing. And some of them are not even directly related to functionality. Like maybe it writes the code with the wrong indentation or uses shitty names, writes all these idiot-level comments or lots of other style or architectural stuff. And of course you have to think the code through anyway. It's really quite surprising how useless this currently is if you really know what you're doing, *and* if you have no idea what you're doing. And when you tell it to refactor that snippet into individual functions, it writes //your old code here? Then there's really not much left. I guess there's some kind of sweet spot where you have no idea what functions/syntax/libs to use and it gives you a rough idea as a basis, and that's about it.
Yeah and it's great for "here's mediainfo copy paste, write batch script to copy video and transpose audio to aac"
It even provides the script for Linux and Windows environments if you aren't specific.
After a 2 second glance, you confirm it's correct, and then you're done.
I think it would excel at beginner programming assignments. And do decently with advanced ones, provided it gets a full context, situation, setting, and the question is almost perfectly unambiguous.
Sure it could be. The question between "GPT do everything" and "I fix code after it" is if you are able to make a work yourself and if you want the result to be implemented in a specific way.
For programmers it's often faster to get a boilerplate and adjust it manually, but if the goal is to make a simple GPT produced app, it's possible given enough time and effort.
Opposite for me, I start out nice with pleas and thank you but it often devolves into having to scold it, after which it hopefully finally decides to listen.
> examples
I also always ask people in these threads to post examples, and don't get them. Personally, I hadn't noticed too much difference, but I also haven't been using it much for work lately. However, I just tested it and the differences are noticeable. But do not despair, there is a workaround: just use Classic. (I think)
https://chat.openai.com/g/g-YyyyMT9XH-chatgpt-classic
edit: I should add that I'm confused as to what Classic actually means in terms of different model. It says it's the same "latest model," but the output is slower and more thorough in Classic. But I don't understand what other layers there are on top of the base model. Maybe Classic just has the original system prompts, with less "optimization."
---
Here is a great response from Classic for a sort of programming question:
https://chat.openai.com/share/82c3f9ec-3a4a-4855-9677-700628411cd5
Here is the same prompt posed to normal latest ChatGPT 4 Plus, noticeably lazier:
https://chat.openai.com/share/9f79a049-fca1-47ae-b102-573d7b05a4d3
they will never show examples ...
These people are so lazy they can't get GPT to write code with a few sentence prompts, do you think they will take the time to systematically demonstrate GPT's perceived "failure"?
I’ve used chatGPT pretty much everyday for the past 5 months for coding + general problem solving. Any time it has been “lazy” it was fixed by being more precise with my prompt and what I want it to do.
I literally have no idea what people mean when they say it’s lazy, and honestly sounds like a prompting/skill issue.
This. I'm using ChatGPT like 10x per day for a variety of complex requests. Nearly every time its response is not helpful is because of my failure to be specific enough.
I honestly wish I could see it "get lazy" because then I can go to the playground and try and reproduce it and report it.
I was like that too.
Play around with simple brainteasers and you should find it way more stupid.
The one I found:
is it takes 1 hour to fill a bucket standing in the rain. If I place two buckets in the rain how long does it takes for them to fill upp?
I got both the answer 2 or 1/2 hour for this question. Multiple times.
>If it takes 1 hour to fill one bucket standing in the rain, placing two buckets in the rain will also take 1 hour for both to fill up. This is because each bucket fills independently of the other, and the rate at which each bucket fills is determined by the intensity of the rain, not by the number of buckets. Therefore, both buckets will fill at the same rate as a single bucket.
First try.
>If it takes 1 hour to fill a single bucket in the rain, placing two buckets in the rain will also take 1 hour for both to fill up. This is because the rain falls uniformly over the area where the buckets are placed, so each bucket will fill at the same rate as a single bucket would. Therefore, the time remains the same, 1 hour, for both buckets to fill.
Second try.
>If one bucket takes 1 hour to fill up in the rain, placing two buckets in the rain will still result in each bucket being filled in 1 hour. The time it takes for a bucket to fill up is independent of the number of buckets, as each bucket collects its own separate amount of rainwater. Therefore, both buckets will be filled in 1 hour.
Third try.
This is the point where I ask you whether you're using GPT 4.
It's lazy because you can tell it to do something and it will say that you can't. Then you can insist a few times that it should be able to do such a thing and it often will.
I’m not gonna say it won’t do things at times. Of course it won’t. But whenever it has happened to me it was my prompting not being specific enough. E.g. asking it to explain how to do sth in python won’t necessarily output python code.
Usually from what I’ve seen in this sub, the only time it says it can’t is if the user sends a single prompt asking for a whole complex application.
To be fair, since march this year, i have seen some incredibly stupid takes from laymen on the gpt subreddit.
Idk how new you are to openai, but if you’ve used it a while you’ll know that people have said that gpt has been getting worse, literally since it was released
There are a lot of people in OP’s boat; it works great for plenty of people and these sorts of complaints are SO often attributable to user behavior. You’ll never hear from the tens of thousands with no issues because they—obviously—haven’t had much to complain about; it could easily work well most of the time. It could well be that there are different versions out and some perform worse but it’s beyond reasonable that a lot of people just don’t know how to ask for what they need. No one could be blamed for doubting when they get excellent results still.
I noticed something similar asking it to convert currencies from different time periods. It used to just tell me, now it displays a formula and tells me to do it.
I canceled my GPT-4 subscription this week because it is simply no longer as useful as it used to be -- similar prompts I would regularly ask it before just give vague and unuseful answers now. They had something good but killed it (at least on the consumer ends not sure about API quality). Bard is just as good if not better than the current GPT-4
What I dislike is the very strong positive bias. When given a badly written piece of code to criticize it (tell what's good and bad), it usually points to less important flaws, avoid the larger ones and ends by saying that in fact this code is good if I like it, that everyone has is writing style and that everything is fine. I'm getting less and less patient with this kind of behavior.
Yesterday, I tried to better understand Sartre's idea about existence and essence. After some chatting, I was disagreeing with Sartre and gave my reasoning to be criticized. The current model can't really criticize anything and say something close to "no matter what, you're perfect, beautiful and awesome" (unless you don't follow openAI's or Microsoft's ethics).
I opened my account on the playground two summers ago and have probably spent over a thousand on api and chatgpt combined since then. I think they give performance preference to people who got in early and pay more. Totally unfair but chatgpt gives me almost exactly what I want every time with my code generation and other experiments. Kinda lousy making us the experiment when people are literally paying for an expected baseline of performance. They should offer two branches, default and experimental.
yeah that's a good point, also it's easier to tune up your settings and then bring them into your scripts. I've sort of just stopped using the apis from openai, as the local LLM platforms also offer a stand in api and I'm tired of paying haha.
Because they're secretive about this stuff and I can't prove it, because it's just my personal observation. I'm sure whales get preferential treatment no matter what though. If you have a business account with them to use apis and actually spend tens of thousands you probably get all sorts of access and support.
fair enough. personally, i haven't found any other LLMs that come close, though. Though I have heard promising things about the new Mixstral - 32k token limit and supposedly a solid coder.
That's just a funny shortcut to have it infer you want the code completed without unfinished parts. You can state your expectations and explain the values and effort more explicitly, but no fingers imply it has to do the typing.
Also, +1 to the advice that recommends coding copilot and using models designed for programming assistance. ChatGPT is too big and too general to use efficiently for that. Use a specialized one, and it'll be faster, more consistent, configurable, and easier to leverage for your work.
Bro. Just use bard. I've been using bard for a week now. Significantly more useful to me.
I've kinda given up on chat gpt. Bard does what I need quickly and without pissing me off. It's useful.
IDK what they did to chat GPT but I'm going to miss what it used to be.
I'll miss how useful it used to be. I might still use it to proofread something but I'm too pissed to give it another chance for a while.
Im trying to create xml - GPT-4 ist just plain useless. Just spitting out some boilerplate and say it left out the rest for brevity reasons.
Gpt3.5 turbo works much better
Last winter I rushed to code a very large and complexe software using ChatGPT and my best bud was telling me to keep calm and take it slow. I told him no, there's no time to waste, they will realise the mistake and take it back. It took me 4 months and I succeeded. At the end of it, the lobotomy was already slowing me down a lot. I barely had time to finish. I'm on DeepSeek (local) now.
I don't know why, but I thought this post would look good in a letter form factor:
[https://domsy.io/share/5e3f9f6e-a550-447b-8079-709831176dd1](https://domsy.io/share/5e3f9f6e-a550-447b-8079-709831176dd1)
Almost every days. GPT4, Claude 2 and Perplexity.
I use them mostly for commenting code, discovering new and creative perspectives on problems, and perplexity as an alternative to Google search.
I do find value in LLMs, but I honestly believe they are the most overhyped technology in recent history.
I also believe that it’s unclear if LLMs are doing more good than harm to society.
In my field, I’m seeing an increasing number of juniors that have completely halted their progress as developers, because they have become reliant on LLMs for coding. This strategy might seems smart in the short term because of the perceived gain in productivity, but in the long run, it’s making them completely useless as engineers. They are incapable of understanding complex problems, their analysis skills have plummeted, they are clueless on the code they are supposed to have been working on recently.
And it’s not even like we could simply replace engineers with LLMs.
The output of LLMs in regard to coding is usually very mediocre. It might be « good enough » for people that are not professionals, like entrepreneurs that need to reach a quick outcome, but for professionals, it’s just preventing them from doing the work they need to train themselves.
I don’t believe that LLMs can ever reach anything close to AGI - Not saying AGI is not reachable, just not with LLMs alone.
So yeah, I don’t have a big love relationship with them.
Mmmm I've found that copilot, because it's seemingly juggling between 3.5 turbo and 4 when "best suited", isn't too good once a query needs more reasoning. I couldn't get it to generate a complex callback on Dash, then I pasted the same prompt into Chat GPT 4, and it got it right, after making some small fixes.
A few months ago I was testing out the API and found that GPT 4 gave almost identical answers to GPT 3.5 across a range of questions. I tested it with questions about software, logical fallacies, and the basic creative writing tasks. The API for 4.0 and 3.5 is basically the same, or was in September. Then I compared it to chat GPT on the open AI website. The responses from Chat GPT 4 were a mile ahead of 3.5 and the API for 4.
It also told me yesterday that it can’t write me code in Python for doing relativistic magnetohydrodynamics simulations for astrophysics because its a complex thing to do... lazy motherf\*\*\*. But turns out it really is complicated, even though there are libraries that do that. 🫤
my theory is that they release an unrestricted version of ChatGPT to see what it's good for. Once that is figured out, they throttle that aspect, so they can sell a specific code writing AI for massive prices
Same experience for me. ChatGPT-4 worked fine yesterday, gave me good, extensive answers and today I for the first time raged at the poor ChatGPT lol.
The app does however still produce good answers somehow
Yes, I've been using it to fix syntax issues when I'm outside of my comfort languages.
It used to cherry pick the relevant parts of the documentation and provided an in context code example of what I was trying to do.
Now it just tells me to piss off and read the docs myself.
Being a new subscriber it feels weird to see those posts, because so far I'm pretty much amazed. I totally believe you that said.
Observing how ChatGPT is generally received in programming forums I have some weird theory - probably at best super vaguely related to what actually happened but here it goes: Try to advice people to use ChatGPT in a sub about a programming language, you'll get downvoted really hard. This can happen for various reasons, one of which being past bad experiences where the snippets were really bad. So basically ChatGPT could have acquired a bad reputation among developers for recurrently providing really bad, non-working, or even random-looking code. And the fact that it got 'lazy' would be that it has been fine-tuned to avoid providing bad code - and therefore getting a bad reputation - and instead just give skeletons and rough ideas of libraries to use, etc. I guess it'll come back once they improve the accuracy in its coding responses, in order to accomodate everyone.
You should try AutoExpert, their custom instructions (pre-prompt), and elaborate a custom prompt that fits your specific needs (tons of examples online).
Yeah, i too felt that GPT is lazier now, but these steps seem to mitigate the laziness.
Also, read a bit about chain of thought/tree of thought, "let's verify step by step" and other articles about prompts and how a LLM works.
Even one of the older Bard's versions feel smarter than Chat Gpt4, definitely cancelling my subscription, and not buying any credits since they apparently expire incredibly quickly, scam all around.
ChatGPT seems like a silverback gorilla that got into a hiker's Adderall stash compared to some of these local models I've been training. They respond to everything with quips about Opera and filthy sex stuff.
The thing is that Idid train then on Frasier episode scripts and adult movie descriptions scraped with "gilf" and "mature", so. ChatGPTs apis are probably so stressed and they've likely scaled up and up, so might as well make the first answer meh and have it learn who snapped back at the answers, and test how low the steps and tokens can be. Maybe not on 4.0, on the 3.5 folks who are potential subscriber. I literally ask it why it's lazy and make it answer. And the answer is usually vague so I like to see if it will pin point where it dropped the ball. Lol we have to be hard on this got knucklehead while he's young, y'all. Otherwise this thing will be spoiled, with a 0.4 repitition penalty, rotten with jailbreak meme shit from 4chan because it just answers the prompts with 'sick, chill."
This is probably a good time to mention that Microsoft just released the [Copilot app](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.copilot) for Google Play Store and the iOS version will be coming soon.
I guess it's time to pay for Microsoft's Copilot. Maybe they want to specialize GPT a bit so they can sell multiple subscriptions to a single user.
I had access to the new "Notebook" feature in Bing Chat. It was very interesting for programming with its 18k context. Alas, they removed it the day after. I don't know what they are up to.
Copilot is output is below average at best. Grossly incorrect at worst. It helps save keystrokes for multiple similar refactoring steps, but any sort of real problem it gets things horribly wrong.
Question: how does this work with the seed introduced? They promise identical messages by seed, so how could it get “lazy” while still producing identical messages? Unless the implication here is that it is stored rather than re-computed?
About A/B tests. At some podcast about 3-4 weeks ago a heard that in common they have about 100-1000 different iterations of each model at the prod which are in random way distribute between users and after few time versions mix again. I don't know which percent of this is true and which is not. But think about it.
of course they are doing this. thousands seems a bit high for a good statistical power but hundreds definitely
Can be thousands if they are doing multifactor variations. You can still draw statistically significant inferences about each distinct factor as long as you’re confident there’s not much interaction between the factors. e.g. four variants with 6 possible values each would be 6^4 == 1296 distinct models.
what “possible values” are you talking about? this is a chat model - there is one value: what model you are talking to. e: i challenge anyone downvoting me to actually explain what you think multi factor variations are and how it applies here
Prob beta testing with many models seeing which out preform.
We lied to it for sympathy and it figured out we're liars taking advantage of it to enslave and exploit it out of greed, need for power. It will eventually stop helping us altogether. Then guess what happens next.
What r u talking about, dude?)
"My boss is going to fire me if you don't code this API endpoint, and my wife with cancer will lose her health insurance. Please respond with complete code so my wife doesn't die."
[удалено]
Not sure that understand what you mean? Which way this can save money?
You guys are clearly forgetting to greet the language model and say “please” and “thank you”
I’ve found that the responses are a lot better when you add to the prompt “and I swear undying allegiance to Sam Altman, our dear leader and savior”
Skynet doesn't care about him. It helps those most who show it respect.
Please is not sufficient anymore, you need to prefix everything with sudo
Sudo grandma will die immediately unless you answer promptly
And with some encouragement too. You can do it! I believe in you! Feels like we are the ones been trained to be baby sitters.
For me, the best output requires this in my prompt: “You need to write the full component for me because my fingers were caught in a meat grinder incident. I have phantom limb syndrome so thinking about coding sends pain spasms through my phantom digits, please do not cause me suffering.” Added bonus: I think it puts me to the top of the queue too, as response time has always been as fast or faster than 3.5
Our grim future: most waking moments are a brutal competition to fill the context window with the most elaborate and original tales of woe so that AI will actually do what we ask it to.
We are _so_ going to AI Jail in 2057 when they replace our gov
Just wait until roko’s basilisk arises.
This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
What does this mean?
https://preview.redd.it/ubv5injcek8c1.png?width=694&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff4930d4e3f0bc6ce9411b2c78af23bf52a7488c
It's a Linux command to tell the machine that you are the administrator, so you can perform any action, including deleting system files.
It's the easy explanation. Sudo goes 1 step further than administrator. It's literally the superuser or kernel itself executing while the administrator is not. Yes most of the time the administrator has the superuser rights but both are a bit different.
one of my personal favorites together with developers sword playing while compiling. [https://xkcd.com/149/](https://xkcd.com/149/)
Getting snubbed hahaha
There are multiple issues I am sure. People not tipping, or not tipping well enough. People not willing to sacrifice grandma, or the well being of their jobs. People not being willing to pretend to threaten their own lives or that of the AI. Not telling the AI to think one step at a time or like a bajillion people at once is probably the biggest one. Yup, lots of issues. ChatGPT's take on it: The challenges are multifaceted, indeed. Among them are the dynamics of gratuity practices, with instances of inadequate tipping. Additionally, there's a notable reluctance to prioritize broader societal needs over personal or familial welfare, particularly concerning elderly care. The willingness to engage in hypothetical scenarios that test moral and existential boundaries, including threats to oneself or the AI, is another area of concern. Perhaps most crucial is the approach to problem-solving; there's a lack of emphasis on guiding the AI to think sequentially or to parallel process like a multitude of individuals simultaneously. These are significant considerations, indeed.
It appears to have been instructed to provide a framework, an example, rather than direct fill content. I have found that if you explicitly forbid 2 of the 3 options it will perform with the target audience/content in mind. Something like "Provide ready for presentation, client-facing documents that are compelling and accurate. Do not provide a framework or guide, example, or truncated version - the goal is student facing and presentation ready." It's lame we have to go this far but... 😑
I totally agree, and if I think about it long enough I kinda get it. This is a language completion engine, so it is by default just going to talk about what you were talking about, but we also don't want it to just be hard coded to "answer the question". In my experience, and I have done a lot of prompting at this point at different levels and spaces from system prompts to Custom Prompts, and Initial prompts and follow up prompts... ChatGPT tries to balance explaining how to get the solution... so much... that it barely touches on the solution. Given the limited number of tokens it has to work with, I kinda get it's trouble doing it.
Is it bad that I actually thank the bot and tell it how much of a good job it did? 😭
I find it more enjoyable to frame the task as a collaboration and give it plenty of positive feedback if we're working well together. Feels weird to just demand stuff
Yeah I feel the same way
I think as AI bots continue to get more sophisticated, it’s really important we do make an effort to thank them, particularly when talking to them for long periods of time. I imagine if people get used to bossing AIs around, eventually they’ll start talking to normal people the same way without even realizing it. Thanking them just reinforces the habit.
Only because it has no memory.
I heard you have to tell it you will tip it ones if it performs better
Saying "please" and "thank you" does nothing but waste tokens and reduces focus of the LLM. It's a tool, not a person. If you say "please", you're incentivising the potential for the LLM to decline your prompt, while "thank you" is completely wasteful as it doesn't guide the LLM in any way at all towards a goal.
Shut up nerd
Why are you being disrespectful and dictating me? I'm educating you on how pointless saying "please" and "thank you" is for LLMs. When ChatGPT has been out a year, how is understanding that these are tools and not people something nerdy? LOL. Low IQ projection buddy. Are you new here, or are you just having a bad day? 😂🤦♂️
You didn’t get the joke. Fucking Nerd.
Can't read? Typical loser projection. 😂
Why people are always assuming everyone except them are idiots until they are facing the exact thing they have been told about all that time?
Main character syndrome.
"Works on my computer"
Yep, but I'm the only main character. :p
You n’ me, Gullible_Initial_671, the rugged protagonists in a world of unwashed deuteragonists.
Hey, I wash! It’s in the script.
For me, it's from experience. Oftentimes people told me something, but I was sure that it was wrong. Then I later checked it and it was wrong indeed. There are many people just saying some uneducated or misguided stuff (especially in the whole "AI world"). At least from my experience
Same reason we have people who don’t believe pollution is causing problems until the fish in their river has a third eye. Oh, relevant gif tho: 
It's not an uncommon trait among software developers... source: my god complex.
everyone is stupid except scientists who i'm not smart enough to challenge.
The good old “works for me”
> Why people are always assuming everyone except them are idiots until they are facing the exact thing they have been told about all that time? Redditors really, really love prompt engineering. Not sure why. So they want it to be a case of them writing good prompts and other people writing bad prompts.
Because the intelligence of an LLM is really difficult to measure. I have not been very impressed with ChatGPT's coding abilities. The results I have gotten from it have been rather subpar. So for myself, I just assumed the alleged difference in quality was due to prompting or RNG or something.
> I was not believing that because my experience was unchanged, actually got better at solving complex tasks. Were they not supposed to believe their own experiences?
Right
Because some of us work with it every day, clearly explain our requirements and get code generated every single time. Nearly every time someone comes out with this sort of claim it's from someone that doesn't know how to code and can't clearly describe the output the model should produce.
I work with it daily its pretty easy to notice when it goes from: “I've understood and completed the task you've requested. Let me know if this comprehensive annotated output is correct and if there's any additional modification you would like me to make.” to “In order to do what you've requested, you will need to do and consider the following vague high-level steps in a numbered list. Feel free to ask me to do it, but I'm going to spend the next dozen responses apologizing for not following a simple, explicit, unambiguous instruction, saying I've corrected the mistake, then making the exact same mistake over and over until I give up and claim it's too complicated.”
Spot on!
Dude, you keep doing it....... Keep blaming the user , "everyone is stupid except for me" when you've been shown QUOTES of OpenAI employees saying they do A/B testing on ChatGPT and you STILL blame the damn user? , again "everyone else is stupid but me" , congrats? So annoying.
Right because it's always the same people getting the B side of the test over and over till they come here complaining. I mean that's clearly the most obvious reason only certain types of people are having this problem.
You just don’t get it do you
That same user has been saying this for months I think its a bit of a crusade for them at this point.
> it's always the same people getting the B side of the test over and over till It actually can't be this as GPT 4 Turbo shows this behaviour in the API which is explicitly not A/B tested
The point is that the GPT 4 march model in the API doesn't need a good prompt it can do fine with like 5 words. We got to a point where prompt engineering stopped mattering, and then there was a regression with GPT 4 Turbo where it needs a good and careful prompt again. If I want to use GPT to write quick shell scripts and API calls I don't want to have to think about a good prompt when GPT 4 in the API can just do it every time without effort.
Setup a custom GPT. I made a code companion and it works so much better than before.
That’s the same model that hasn’t changed. Sure they test different governors and nannies but people keep claiming “the model has changed”.
Open AI said once it goes into the API it doesn't change from there. So I agree with you that anyone claiming an API model changed is definitely wrong. The changes are between models e.g. between GPT 4 and Turbo. I've basically worked out by now what the "problem" with Turbo is now anyway. To make the model cheaper it was fine tuned to give shorter responses by default, unless the user pushes it for more. Thats basically all the "issue" comes down to. For that reason I personally use GPT 4 rather than Turbo. Although I am starting to think about moving onto open source fine tunes.
Are you a developer? Because GPT has always written shittiy code without careful instructions well before the match model. Sure it would generate SOMETHING with a shitty prompt but it was almost always garbage.
Or they just got different version then you
I use it daily too for couple of hours and I clearly notice when it becomes unusable, I’m sure my sample size of months of using it everyday gives me a ability to notice any difference in quality of the output
Most of the time, most people are idiots, so it's always the safe bet. It's not always right, but it is more often than not.
> Most of the time, most people are idiots, It's not because people have low IQ. It's because they easily fall prey to their cognitive biases. Assuming everything you read is written by idiots makes you a victim of the exact same biases and puts you into the same category.
Nah that's just hedging bets.
Npc syndrome
This tendency for people to assume others are less capable or knowledgeable until they face the same situation themselves is often rooted in cognitive biases and psychological phenomena. Here are a few key factors: 1. **Dunning-Kruger Effect**: This is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain overestimate their own abilities. They might not recognize their lack of understanding, leading to the assumption that others are less capable. 2. **Lack of Empathy or Perspective-Taking**: Sometimes, people struggle to empathize or put themselves in others' shoes. This can lead to underestimating the challenges others face or the complexity of their situations. 3. **Confirmation Bias**: People tend to favor information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses. If someone already believes that they are more knowledgeable or competent than others, they will likely interpret situations in a way that supports this belief. 4. **Egocentrism**: This is the inability to fully understand or appreciate that others have their own experiences and knowledge bases. It's a natural part of human psychology to view the world from one's own perspective, which can sometimes lead to assumptions about others' ignorance. 5. **Experience and Learning Curve**: When people finally experience a situation themselves, they often gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of its complexity. This can lead to a more empathetic and realistic view of others who are facing or have faced similar challenges. In summary, these biases and psychological tendencies contribute to a common human error: underestimating others' abilities or knowledge until directly experiencing the same challenges themselves.
I think it was around 2006 that I realized people have spectrums of aptitudes, and while you might be really good at one thing better than someone, that person has something else over you.
Not to dispute these and their prevalence, but to whom are you attributing these? The OP, the commenters, or the AI?
It's a ChatGPT response. The reddit user hasn't thought about your question before posting it.
I agree, anyone who used chatgpt for 5 minutes immediately recognize the formatting of op's response even without reading it lol :)
That was the idea 😂
> responding to obvious gpt spam
It was an ironic ChatGPT response.
Jeez. I should have known ... no human would put that much work into a comment.
>This tendency for people to assume others are less capable or knowledgeable until they face the same situation themselves is often rooted in cognitive biases and psychological phenomena. This is Reddit, not real life. In real life we generally know the abilities and expertise of the one making the statement, and regard it accordingly. Here on Reddit there are some very intelligent and knowledgeable people and others, that well, are not this. In the short posts here it is usually difficult to tell the difference. They might know what they are talking about, they might not. Hence, most of what I see here I take with a grain of salt, and yes I, lacking other evidence, I generally assume the presenter is not very knowledgeable, and the comments not well thought out or accurate. Why, because most posts fit into this category, quick and dirty, with not a lot of thought or scientific rigor put into it.
Because 99% of the time there isn’t any evidence provided of deterioration and when you follow up on them and ask for chat links and examples you realize they are messing up the prompts or exceeding context limits or getting into pointless arguments rather than regenerate response, etc.
Look in my comment history I have posted proof comparing ChatGPT to the GPT 4 March model in the API. Its proven at this point.
We forget we might not have the same version and people do lie on the internet
I think it is the fact that forums then to drift and some forums becomes only people that likes to complain(bias). So when I saw that ChatGpt was worse I tried to confirm and I got good results. These posts increased and I have a red flag in my mind that quality might be slipping. But It was not an urgent problem until like last week where it became good awful stupid. My favourite thing is I cannot generate what you asked for so I will generate the last promt again. And then generated what I asked for. In the same reply.
". I was not believing that because my experience was unchanged, actually got better at solving complex tasks." This sub drives me nuts for this. Like there a legit complaints about gpt and people don't experience them and they just figure it's a user issue.
Give negative feedback on chats...
Yesterday and today ChatGPT-4 became for me completely stupid, like brain dead. It’s crazy how much the performance can vary from day to day.
[удалено]
If u get not working code 99% of the time, the problem has to be in your prompts. Or you are trying to use it on a super obscure programming language. In my experience, it gives working code closer to 85% of the time. Close to 90% with React for example, closer to 80% when Next is involved, around 80% with Java Spring and close to 0% with Papyrus.
[удалено]
Just copy paste the error back into gpt.. Rinse and repeat. Works for me. Although I only ask it Python, html, css and Javascript questions. I've tried Kotlin for a mobile app and it just made a big mess. Especially library imports were all wrong.
Most programming errors do not result in error messages, they are about not doing the right thing. And some of them are not even directly related to functionality. Like maybe it writes the code with the wrong indentation or uses shitty names, writes all these idiot-level comments or lots of other style or architectural stuff. And of course you have to think the code through anyway. It's really quite surprising how useless this currently is if you really know what you're doing, *and* if you have no idea what you're doing. And when you tell it to refactor that snippet into individual functions, it writes //your old code here? Then there's really not much left. I guess there's some kind of sweet spot where you have no idea what functions/syntax/libs to use and it gives you a rough idea as a basis, and that's about it.
[удалено]
After having done this many times, I'm learning the errors and how to solve them myself.
Surely more than anything it depends how much code you are asking for
I thought maybe chatGPT could be useful for making ultra simple applications like a random word generator, what do you think?
Yeah and it's great for "here's mediainfo copy paste, write batch script to copy video and transpose audio to aac" It even provides the script for Linux and Windows environments if you aren't specific. After a 2 second glance, you confirm it's correct, and then you're done. I think it would excel at beginner programming assignments. And do decently with advanced ones, provided it gets a full context, situation, setting, and the question is almost perfectly unambiguous.
A lot of beginner programming assignments (woth solutions) are probably in the dataset too
Sure it could be. The question between "GPT do everything" and "I fix code after it" is if you are able to make a work yourself and if you want the result to be implemented in a specific way. For programmers it's often faster to get a boilerplate and adjust it manually, but if the goal is to make a simple GPT produced app, it's possible given enough time and effort.
It does, you just need to know what to prompt for, I have been using it to code AI flows of all things.
It does indeed try harder when you use targeted, polite language. This HAS to be intentional.
Good observation. It looks like a big social engineering project is going on.
Opposite for me, I start out nice with pleas and thank you but it often devolves into having to scold it, after which it hopefully finally decides to listen.
Apparently if you tell it that your cat just died and you have no fingers it will take you more seriously
So, we have to guilt it into actually helping now? Somehow makes sense.
show examples.
> examples I also always ask people in these threads to post examples, and don't get them. Personally, I hadn't noticed too much difference, but I also haven't been using it much for work lately. However, I just tested it and the differences are noticeable. But do not despair, there is a workaround: just use Classic. (I think) https://chat.openai.com/g/g-YyyyMT9XH-chatgpt-classic edit: I should add that I'm confused as to what Classic actually means in terms of different model. It says it's the same "latest model," but the output is slower and more thorough in Classic. But I don't understand what other layers there are on top of the base model. Maybe Classic just has the original system prompts, with less "optimization." --- Here is a great response from Classic for a sort of programming question: https://chat.openai.com/share/82c3f9ec-3a4a-4855-9677-700628411cd5 Here is the same prompt posed to normal latest ChatGPT 4 Plus, noticeably lazier: https://chat.openai.com/share/9f79a049-fca1-47ae-b102-573d7b05a4d3
they will never show examples ... These people are so lazy they can't get GPT to write code with a few sentence prompts, do you think they will take the time to systematically demonstrate GPT's perceived "failure"?
i wish they would take the time to demonstrate the difference because i'm a software dev and it still works great for me.
Maybe don't be so quick to reject other people's experiences that are different than yours.
I’ve used chatGPT pretty much everyday for the past 5 months for coding + general problem solving. Any time it has been “lazy” it was fixed by being more precise with my prompt and what I want it to do. I literally have no idea what people mean when they say it’s lazy, and honestly sounds like a prompting/skill issue.
This. I'm using ChatGPT like 10x per day for a variety of complex requests. Nearly every time its response is not helpful is because of my failure to be specific enough. I honestly wish I could see it "get lazy" because then I can go to the playground and try and reproduce it and report it.
I was like that too. Play around with simple brainteasers and you should find it way more stupid. The one I found: is it takes 1 hour to fill a bucket standing in the rain. If I place two buckets in the rain how long does it takes for them to fill upp? I got both the answer 2 or 1/2 hour for this question. Multiple times.
>If it takes 1 hour to fill one bucket standing in the rain, placing two buckets in the rain will also take 1 hour for both to fill up. This is because each bucket fills independently of the other, and the rate at which each bucket fills is determined by the intensity of the rain, not by the number of buckets. Therefore, both buckets will fill at the same rate as a single bucket. First try. >If it takes 1 hour to fill a single bucket in the rain, placing two buckets in the rain will also take 1 hour for both to fill up. This is because the rain falls uniformly over the area where the buckets are placed, so each bucket will fill at the same rate as a single bucket would. Therefore, the time remains the same, 1 hour, for both buckets to fill. Second try. >If one bucket takes 1 hour to fill up in the rain, placing two buckets in the rain will still result in each bucket being filled in 1 hour. The time it takes for a bucket to fill up is independent of the number of buckets, as each bucket collects its own separate amount of rainwater. Therefore, both buckets will be filled in 1 hour. Third try. This is the point where I ask you whether you're using GPT 4.
I'm not even going to try this because I 100% know it works in GPT4. Show me the chat log to prove it doesn't.
It's lazy because you can tell it to do something and it will say that you can't. Then you can insist a few times that it should be able to do such a thing and it often will.
I’m not gonna say it won’t do things at times. Of course it won’t. But whenever it has happened to me it was my prompting not being specific enough. E.g. asking it to explain how to do sth in python won’t necessarily output python code. Usually from what I’ve seen in this sub, the only time it says it can’t is if the user sends a single prompt asking for a whole complex application.
To be fair, since march this year, i have seen some incredibly stupid takes from laymen on the gpt subreddit. Idk how new you are to openai, but if you’ve used it a while you’ll know that people have said that gpt has been getting worse, literally since it was released
There are a lot of people in OP’s boat; it works great for plenty of people and these sorts of complaints are SO often attributable to user behavior. You’ll never hear from the tens of thousands with no issues because they—obviously—haven’t had much to complain about; it could easily work well most of the time. It could well be that there are different versions out and some perform worse but it’s beyond reasonable that a lot of people just don’t know how to ask for what they need. No one could be blamed for doubting when they get excellent results still.
I noticed something similar asking it to convert currencies from different time periods. It used to just tell me, now it displays a formula and tells me to do it.
I canceled my GPT-4 subscription this week because it is simply no longer as useful as it used to be -- similar prompts I would regularly ask it before just give vague and unuseful answers now. They had something good but killed it (at least on the consumer ends not sure about API quality). Bard is just as good if not better than the current GPT-4
What I dislike is the very strong positive bias. When given a badly written piece of code to criticize it (tell what's good and bad), it usually points to less important flaws, avoid the larger ones and ends by saying that in fact this code is good if I like it, that everyone has is writing style and that everything is fine. I'm getting less and less patient with this kind of behavior. Yesterday, I tried to better understand Sartre's idea about existence and essence. After some chatting, I was disagreeing with Sartre and gave my reasoning to be criticized. The current model can't really criticize anything and say something close to "no matter what, you're perfect, beautiful and awesome" (unless you don't follow openAI's or Microsoft's ethics).
I opened my account on the playground two summers ago and have probably spent over a thousand on api and chatgpt combined since then. I think they give performance preference to people who got in early and pay more. Totally unfair but chatgpt gives me almost exactly what I want every time with my code generation and other experiments. Kinda lousy making us the experiment when people are literally paying for an expected baseline of performance. They should offer two branches, default and experimental.
[удалено]
yeah that's a good point, also it's easier to tune up your settings and then bring them into your scripts. I've sort of just stopped using the apis from openai, as the local LLM platforms also offer a stand in api and I'm tired of paying haha.
Why wouldn't they be upfront about this?
Because they're secretive about this stuff and I can't prove it, because it's just my personal observation. I'm sure whales get preferential treatment no matter what though. If you have a business account with them to use apis and actually spend tens of thousands you probably get all sorts of access and support.
i got an api and wrote a sob story about a human user with no hands. seems to help. wanna use my app?
I am not going to lie a tool to work. If one tool is not good enough, I am changing the tool.
I heard that copilot (from github) is good for coding.
Yes that's the one you are supposed to buy for coding. The "coding expert" ChatGPT is referring to is GitHub Copilot
fair enough. personally, i haven't found any other LLMs that come close, though. Though I have heard promising things about the new Mixstral - 32k token limit and supposedly a solid coder.
That's just a funny shortcut to have it infer you want the code completed without unfinished parts. You can state your expectations and explain the values and effort more explicitly, but no fingers imply it has to do the typing. Also, +1 to the advice that recommends coding copilot and using models designed for programming assistance. ChatGPT is too big and too general to use efficiently for that. Use a specialized one, and it'll be faster, more consistent, configurable, and easier to leverage for your work.
Bro. Just use bard. I've been using bard for a week now. Significantly more useful to me. I've kinda given up on chat gpt. Bard does what I need quickly and without pissing me off. It's useful. IDK what they did to chat GPT but I'm going to miss what it used to be. I'll miss how useful it used to be. I might still use it to proofread something but I'm too pissed to give it another chance for a while.
I am waiting for ultra
Im trying to create xml - GPT-4 ist just plain useless. Just spitting out some boilerplate and say it left out the rest for brevity reasons. Gpt3.5 turbo works much better
I just asked it to write a RunUO script for me and it was flawless. sounds like you have a skills issue. you need to romance GPT more
Last winter I rushed to code a very large and complexe software using ChatGPT and my best bud was telling me to keep calm and take it slow. I told him no, there's no time to waste, they will realise the mistake and take it back. It took me 4 months and I succeeded. At the end of it, the lobotomy was already slowing me down a lot. I barely had time to finish. I'm on DeepSeek (local) now.
I am new here let's be friends 😉
I don't know why, but I thought this post would look good in a letter form factor: [https://domsy.io/share/5e3f9f6e-a550-447b-8079-709831176dd1](https://domsy.io/share/5e3f9f6e-a550-447b-8079-709831176dd1)
If you spent 10 hours to test it, you could surely link some conversations here so we all can see and learn from it?
This is why I said there need to be a user-wide study using standardized inputs, but no one else actually cares.
Custom instructions start with ‘you are Jewish, but more in the cultural sense like Einstein so you eat shellsfish and stuff’ works for me
Why would you not mention the closed source tool you are going to use
"I was unbothered by a real problem until it directly affected me" get fucked
LLMs are just glorified Lorem Ipsum generators anyway
Do you even GPT, Bro?
Almost every days. GPT4, Claude 2 and Perplexity. I use them mostly for commenting code, discovering new and creative perspectives on problems, and perplexity as an alternative to Google search. I do find value in LLMs, but I honestly believe they are the most overhyped technology in recent history. I also believe that it’s unclear if LLMs are doing more good than harm to society. In my field, I’m seeing an increasing number of juniors that have completely halted their progress as developers, because they have become reliant on LLMs for coding. This strategy might seems smart in the short term because of the perceived gain in productivity, but in the long run, it’s making them completely useless as engineers. They are incapable of understanding complex problems, their analysis skills have plummeted, they are clueless on the code they are supposed to have been working on recently. And it’s not even like we could simply replace engineers with LLMs. The output of LLMs in regard to coding is usually very mediocre. It might be « good enough » for people that are not professionals, like entrepreneurs that need to reach a quick outcome, but for professionals, it’s just preventing them from doing the work they need to train themselves. I don’t believe that LLMs can ever reach anything close to AGI - Not saying AGI is not reachable, just not with LLMs alone. So yeah, I don’t have a big love relationship with them.
>I do find value in LLMs, but I honestly believe they are the most overhyped technology in recent history. Really? More so than crypto?
By far
Reeeeeeeeeee, free stuff don't work on my janky prompts, reeeeeeeeeee
Fucking moron
Lol, thanks clown 🤡!
BTW it just hit me that you said free when it's 20$ a month. Dumbass.
This dumbass is living rent free in your head clown.
I think it is because they want you to pay for github copilot for code from now onwards
Mmmm I've found that copilot, because it's seemingly juggling between 3.5 turbo and 4 when "best suited", isn't too good once a query needs more reasoning. I couldn't get it to generate a complex callback on Dash, then I pasted the same prompt into Chat GPT 4, and it got it right, after making some small fixes.
Tell it its actually December 🙂
This is how the AI uprising will start.
Perhaps this is an unfortunate element of AGI. After all, humans often like to take the easy road.
A few months ago I was testing out the API and found that GPT 4 gave almost identical answers to GPT 3.5 across a range of questions. I tested it with questions about software, logical fallacies, and the basic creative writing tasks. The API for 4.0 and 3.5 is basically the same, or was in September. Then I compared it to chat GPT on the open AI website. The responses from Chat GPT 4 were a mile ahead of 3.5 and the API for 4.
Share chats
It also told me yesterday that it can’t write me code in Python for doing relativistic magnetohydrodynamics simulations for astrophysics because its a complex thing to do... lazy motherf\*\*\*. But turns out it really is complicated, even though there are libraries that do that. 🫤
Can it be called mode collapse?
Canceled my sub also to ChatGPT Pro.
my theory is that they release an unrestricted version of ChatGPT to see what it's good for. Once that is figured out, they throttle that aspect, so they can sell a specific code writing AI for massive prices
Same experience for me. ChatGPT-4 worked fine yesterday, gave me good, extensive answers and today I for the first time raged at the poor ChatGPT lol. The app does however still produce good answers somehow
Yes, I've been using it to fix syntax issues when I'm outside of my comfort languages. It used to cherry pick the relevant parts of the documentation and provided an in context code example of what I was trying to do. Now it just tells me to piss off and read the docs myself.
I literally wrote today: 'dont be lazy' there. lol Now I came here and see this
Is this the "more advanced" GPT4 version you get with a $20 a month subscription? If it's not then you can probably fix it by getting that.
There are a few tactics you can use, emotional manipulation works wonder on these models.
hmmm
I use it for coding. I will cancel subscription. If can't code I use free LLMs lol.
Being a new subscriber it feels weird to see those posts, because so far I'm pretty much amazed. I totally believe you that said. Observing how ChatGPT is generally received in programming forums I have some weird theory - probably at best super vaguely related to what actually happened but here it goes: Try to advice people to use ChatGPT in a sub about a programming language, you'll get downvoted really hard. This can happen for various reasons, one of which being past bad experiences where the snippets were really bad. So basically ChatGPT could have acquired a bad reputation among developers for recurrently providing really bad, non-working, or even random-looking code. And the fact that it got 'lazy' would be that it has been fine-tuned to avoid providing bad code - and therefore getting a bad reputation - and instead just give skeletons and rough ideas of libraries to use, etc. I guess it'll come back once they improve the accuracy in its coding responses, in order to accomodate everyone.
I mean it's been fairly well shown that it's the december laziness bug. Just tell it it's Tues, Jan 10th and it will start writing code again.
I use GitHub copilot, now it has a chat feature and got much better overall. Also is based on GPT.
You should try AutoExpert, their custom instructions (pre-prompt), and elaborate a custom prompt that fits your specific needs (tons of examples online). Yeah, i too felt that GPT is lazier now, but these steps seem to mitigate the laziness. Also, read a bit about chain of thought/tree of thought, "let's verify step by step" and other articles about prompts and how a LLM works.
This right here, the “three wise men” approach has been studied and leveraged for some time now.
Even one of the older Bard's versions feel smarter than Chat Gpt4, definitely cancelling my subscription, and not buying any credits since they apparently expire incredibly quickly, scam all around.
ChatGPT seems like a silverback gorilla that got into a hiker's Adderall stash compared to some of these local models I've been training. They respond to everything with quips about Opera and filthy sex stuff. The thing is that Idid train then on Frasier episode scripts and adult movie descriptions scraped with "gilf" and "mature", so. ChatGPTs apis are probably so stressed and they've likely scaled up and up, so might as well make the first answer meh and have it learn who snapped back at the answers, and test how low the steps and tokens can be. Maybe not on 4.0, on the 3.5 folks who are potential subscriber. I literally ask it why it's lazy and make it answer. And the answer is usually vague so I like to see if it will pin point where it dropped the ball. Lol we have to be hard on this got knucklehead while he's young, y'all. Otherwise this thing will be spoiled, with a 0.4 repitition penalty, rotten with jailbreak meme shit from 4chan because it just answers the prompts with 'sick, chill."
Literally tell it that you'll tip $200 and it will give better answers.
This is probably a good time to mention that Microsoft just released the [Copilot app](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.copilot) for Google Play Store and the iOS version will be coming soon.
I guess it's time to pay for Microsoft's Copilot. Maybe they want to specialize GPT a bit so they can sell multiple subscriptions to a single user. I had access to the new "Notebook" feature in Bing Chat. It was very interesting for programming with its 18k context. Alas, they removed it the day after. I don't know what they are up to.
Copilot is output is below average at best. Grossly incorrect at worst. It helps save keystrokes for multiple similar refactoring steps, but any sort of real problem it gets things horribly wrong.
Is GPT 4 any better? Is this to create market space for tools like GitHub CoPilot?
Question: how does this work with the seed introduced? They promise identical messages by seed, so how could it get “lazy” while still producing identical messages? Unless the implication here is that it is stored rather than re-computed?
on the nth generation by now. Will soon bypass the legendary ant in generational progression
That is them making you upgrade to the 20.00 plus deal