Yeah I think you’re right on about the students not being able to afford GPT4 (I don’t blame them. The API version gets expensive quick). I agree though that it doesn’t seem super well put together.

It’s a pretty important fact since there’s a huge difference between 3.5 and 4. Mentioning it once in one place is not great, plus they also just mention ChatGPT without specifying 3.5 or 4 earlier in that paragraph. The problem I have is this has led to press (and hence many other people) thinking ChatGPT is terrible at coding when in fact using the GPT 4 version, it’s actually pretty decent.

GPT4 with reflexion prompting gets 90% correct (for HumanEval coding benchmark). The paper this is based on is misleading at best.

Yeah. They buried it in there (and for some of their experiments just said “ChatGPT” which could mean either), but they used 3.5 and oddly enough, 3.5 gets 48% on HumanEval.

Oh ok! Got it. I read it as you saying ChatGPT doesn’t use GPT 4. It’s still unclear what they used for part of it because of the bit before the part you quoted:

For each of the 517 SO questions, the first two authors manually used the SO question’s title, body, and tags to form one question prompt3 and fed that to the Chat Interface [45] of ChatGPT.

It doesn’t say if it’s 4 or 3.5, but I’m going to assume 3.5. Anyway, in the end they got the same result for GPT 3.5 that it gets on HumanEval, which isn’t anything interesting. Also, GPT 4 is much better, so I’m not really sure what the point is. Their stuff on the analysis of the language used in the questions was pretty interesting though.

Also, thanks for finding their mention of 3.5. I missed that in my skim through obviously.

Yes available to anyone in the API or anyone who pays for ChatGPT subscription.

If we are talking Copilot then that’s not ChatGPT. But I agree it’s ok. Like it can do simple things well but I go to GPT 4 for the hard stuff. (Or my own brain haha)

Hmm that’s incorrect. ChatGPT (if you pay for it) does both.

Wait a second here… I skimmed the paper and GitHub and didn’t find an answer to a very important question: is this GPT3.5 or 4? There’s a huge difference in code quality between the two and either they made a giant accidental omission or they are being intentionally misleading. Please correct me if I missed where they specified that. I’m assuming they were using GPT3.5, so yeah those results would be as expected. On the HumanEval benchmark, GPT4 gets 67% and that goes up to 90% with reflexion prompting. GPT3.5 gets 48.1%, which is exactly what this paper is saying. (source).

The one I like to give is tool use. I can present the LLM with a problem and give it a number of tools it can use to solve the problem and it is pretty good at that. Here’s an older writeup that mentions a lot of others: https://www.jasonwei.net/blog/emergence

Yeah, I think that’s a big part of it. I also wonder if people are getting tired of the hype and seeing every company advertise AI enabled products (which I can sort of get because a lot of them are just dumb and obvious cash grabs).

At this point, it’s pretty clear to me that there’s going to be a shift in how the world works over the next 2 to 5 years, and people will have a choice of whether to embrace it or get left behind. I’ve estimated that for some programming tasks, I’m about 7 to 10x faster when using Copilot and ChatGPT4. I don’t see how someone who isn’t using AI could compete with that. And before anyone asks, I don’t think the error rate in the code is any higher.

I’ve been making the same or similar arguments you are here in a lot of places. I use LLMs every day for my job, and it’s quite clear that beyond a certain scale, there’s definitely more going on than “fancy autocomplete.”

I’m not sure what’s up with people hating on AI all of a sudden, but there seems quite a few who are confidently giving out incorrect information. I find it most amusing when they’re doing that at the same time as bashing LLMs for also confidently giving out wrong information.

Yeah. I mean I started reading that story and was thinking how cool it would be… Until it started going bad. Something like a GPS for whatever task you were doing at work would be cool.

You should check out the short story Manna. It’s maybe a bit dated now but explores what could go wrong with that sort of thing.

Ahh ok that makes sense. I think even with GPT4, it’s still going to be difficult for a non-programmer to use for anything that isn’t fairly trivial. I still have to use my knowledge of stuff to know the right things to ask. In Feb or Mar, you were using GPT3 (4 requires you to pay monthly). 3 is much worse at everything than 4.

I’m curious about this. What model were you using? A few people at my game dev company have said similar things about it not producing good code for unity and unreal. I haven’t seen that at all. I typically use GPT4 and Copilot. Sometimes the code has a logic flaw or something, but most of the time it works on the first try. I do at this point have a ton of experience working with LLMs so maybe it’s just a matter of prompting? When Copilot doesn’t read my mind (which tends to happen quite a bit), I just write a comment with what I want it to do and sometimes I have to start writing the first line of code but it usually catches on and does what I ask. I rarely run into a problem that is too hairy for GPT4, but it does happen.

That last bit already happened. An AI (allegedly) told a guy to commit suicide and he did. A big part of the problem is while GPT4 for instance knows all about all the things you just said and can probably do what you’re suggesting, nobody can guarantee it won’t get something horribly wrong at some point. Sort of like how self driving cars can handle like 95% of things correctly but that 5% of unexpected stuff that maybe takes some extra context that a human has and the car was never trained on is very hard to get past.

That’s possible now. I’ve been working on such a thing for a bit now and it can generally do all that, though I wouldn’t advise it to be used for therapy (or medical advice), but mostly for legal reasons rather than ability. When you create a new agent, you can tell it what type of personality you want. It doesn’t just respond to commands but also figures out what needs to be done and does it independently.