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.

  • calculuschild@lemm.ee
    35·
    2 年前

    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.

  • stravanasu@lemmy.caEnglish
    17·
    2 年前

    For me it’s like using a coffee machine as a stopwatch, and then complaining that it doesn’t always give the exact time lapsed.

  • Big P@feddit.uk
    7·
    2 年前

    I think this might be what stops AI from taking over as much as people fear. If I was a business owner I wouldn’t want to put my trust in a black box if I can pay someone to ensure it works exactly to my specification

  • Karlos_Cantana@sopuli.xyz
    4·
    2 年前

    I’ve found it making up “facts” when I query it. I thought I was doing something wrong, but apparently, it’s just changing the way it works for some reason.

    • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.org
      8·
      2 年前

      Same. Now I’m only using search engines that don’t have it.

      It’s not changing the way it works. It’s making up shit when it doesn’t know.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        10·
        2 年前

        And that’s how AI works, it’s all probability. It’s not answering 2+2, there’s a probability that the answer is 4 and it chooses that. If something convinces it that it should be 5 it’ll start answering 5

        • Rhaedas@kbin.social
          9·
          2 年前

          That’s how language models work. It’s grouped into AI as is so many things, but it’s not AGI. It could open the doors to AGI as a component, but isn’t actually thinking about its answers. And those probabilities are driven by training reinforcement which includes the bias of giving an answer the human will receive well. Of course it’s going to “lie” or make up things if that improves the acceptance of the answer given.

          • aperson@beehaw.org
            7·
            2 年前

            The best description I’ve heard to give to most people is that llms knows what the right answer looks like, not what it is.

      • thejml@lemm.ee
        4·
        2 年前

        If I wanted that I could just ask my daughter. She makes up shit all the time when she doesn’t actually know.

        • hypevhs@beehaw.orgEnglish
          8·
          2 年前

          According to the Japanese zodiac, people born in May 1994 would have the zodiac sign of the Snake.

          Expect it’s Dog, not Snake. Bing thinks it’s Ox. How did the entire field of AI go from surprisingly accurate to utterly useless in the span of under a year? I have no idea what benefits you personally see in this site.

            • Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social
              3·
              2 年前

              Thanks for this reply. That’s probably the best way to use LLMs - general definitions or framing / summarizing of issues. And then always check the sources to make sure it was accurate. I’ve played around with ChatGPT and Bard and I think my mistake has been to be a little too granular or specific in my prompts. In most cases it produced results that were inaccurate (ETA: or flat out demonstrably wrong) or only fulfilled a part of the prompt.

        • backpackn@lemmy.ml
          1·
          2 年前

          Was gonna say this too, it’s a great one for fact-checking. Sometimes it won’t include a source and make something up, just watch out for those.