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.
For sure, no worries. I had the same questions as you when reading it. Fwiw, the paper is really kind of sloppy. I think it’s maybe a case of poor students not wanting to pay for GPT-4? Maybe they’ll clean it up and respond to some of the criticisms when it comes out of draft, but it doesn’t seem like very rigorous scholarship to me.
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.
Hmm that’s incorrect. ChatGPT (if you pay for it) does both.
I’m talking about the models and how they’re written about in the literature. I don’t care how OpenAI brands their products.
From the paper itself:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.02312.pdf
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:
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.
For sure, no worries. I had the same questions as you when reading it. Fwiw, the paper is really kind of sloppy. I think it’s maybe a case of poor students not wanting to pay for GPT-4? Maybe they’ll clean it up and respond to some of the criticisms when it comes out of draft, but it doesn’t seem like very rigorous scholarship to me.
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.