Perhaps this AI thing is just a sham and there are tiny gnomes in the servers answering all the questions as fast as they can. Unfortuanlty, there are not enough qualified tiny gnomes to handle the increased work load. They have begun to outsource to the leprechauns who run the random text generators.
Luckily the artistic hypersonic orcs seem to be doing fine...for the most part
I have seen the same thing, gpt4 was originally able to handle more complex coding tasks, GPT4-turbo is not able to do it anymore. I have creative coding test that I have tested many LLM's with, and only original gpt4 was able to solve it. Current one fails miserable with it.
This is a result of what is known as oversampling. When you zoom in really close and make one part of a wave look good, it makes the rest of the wave go crazy. This is what you're seeing; the team at OpenAI tried super hard to make a good first impression and nailed that, but then once some time started to pass things started to quickly fall apart.
Peak XV (measured in feet) was calculated to be exactly 29,000 ft (8,839.2 m) high, but was publicly declared to be 29,002 ft (8,839.8 m) in order to avoid the impression that an exact height of 29,000 feet (8,839.2 m) was nothing more than a rounded estimate.
It all comes down to the fact that LLMs are not AGI - they have no clue what they’re saying or why or to whom. They have no concept of “context” and as a result have no ability to “know” if they’re giving right info or just hallucinating.
AI fudging is notoriously common. Just ask anyone who lived in the 3rd world what working was like in their country and they'll animate with stories of how many times they were approached by big tech companies to roleplay as an AI.
"In March, GPT-4 correctly identified the number 17077 as a prime number in 97.6% of the cases. Surprisingly, just three months later, this accuracy plunged dramatically to a mere 2.4%. Conversely, the GPT-3.5 model showed contrasting results. The March version only managed to answer the same question correctly 7.4% of the time, while the June version exhibited a remarkable improvement, achieving an 86.8% accuracy rate."
Not everything is a click bait. Your explanation is great but the tittle is not lying, is just an simplification, titles could not contain every detail of the news, they are still tittles, and what the tittle says can be confirmed in your explanation. The only think I could've made different is specified that was a gpt-4 issue.
I mean... some might argue that even 98% wasn't enough!? :-D
What are people supposed to - ask every question 3 times and take the best 2 out of 3, like this was kindergarten? (and that is the best-case scenario, where the errors are entirely evenly distributed across the entire problem space, which is the absolute lowest likelihood model there - much more often some problems would be wrong 100% of the time, while others may be correct more like 99% of the time, but importantly you will never know in advance which is which)
Actually that does on a real issue: some schools teach the model of "upholding standards" where like the kids actually have to know stuff (& like, junk, yeah totally) - whereas conversely another, competing model is where if they just learn something, anything at all during the year, that that is good enough to pass them and make them someone else's problem down the line (it's a good thing that professionals don't need to uh... "uphold standards", right? anyway, the important thing there is that the school still receives the federal funding in the latter case but not the former, and I am sure that we all can agree that when it comes to the next generation of our children, the profits for the school administrators are all that matters... right? /s)
All of this came up when Trump appointed one of his top donors, Betsy Devos to be in charge of all edumacashium in America, and she had literally never stepped foot inside of a public school in her entire lifetime. I am not kidding you, watch the Barbara Walters special to hear it from her own mouth. Appropriately (somehow), she had never even so much as heard of either of these two main competing models. Yet she still stepped up and acknowledged that somehow she, as an extremely wealthy (read: successful) white woman, she could do that task better than literally all of the educators in the entire nation - plus all those with PhDs in education too, jeering cheering her on from the sidelines.
Anyway, why we should expect "correctness" from an artificial intelligence, when we cannot seem to find it anywhere among humans either, is beyond me. These were marketing gimmicks to begin with, then we all rushed to ask it to save us from the enshittification of the internet. It was never going to happen - not this soon, not this easily, not this painlessly. Results take real effort.
Just for the fun of it, I argued with chatgpt saying it’s not really a self learning ai, 3.5 agreed that it’s a not a fully function ai with limited powers. 4.0 on the other hand was very adamant about being fully fleshed Ai
This. They could obviously reset to original performance (what, they don't have backups?), it's just more cost-efficient to have crappier answers. Yay, turbo AI enshittification...
How ironic... people now need to learn a computer language in order to understand the computer? (instead of so that the computer can understand people)
That would only solve the purely math parts. So it would solve "2+2=?", but it would not solve "two plus two equals?".
And even if it did, don't miss the fact that this is an indicator of more foundational problems that lie beneath. Like if you ever wake up and your clock is wrong, you might want to find out why - perhaps its battery is low, and if so, it will never get any better as long as you and it live, until you deal with that. Or maybe you had a power outage, and a bunch of things could have gone wrong in relation to that (is your pilot light out, are you now leaking gas everywhere?)
