Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nixed9 t1_jdnpdma wrote

Reply to comment by BellyDancerUrgot in Do we really need 100B+ parameters in a large language model? by Vegetable-Skill-9700

In my personal experience, Bing Chat, while it says it's powered by GPT-4, is way, way, way less powerful and useful than ChatGPT-4 (which is only available for Pro users right now). I've found ChatGPT-4 SIGNIFICANTLY better.

It also has emergent properties of intelligence, vision, and mapping, somehow. We don't know how.

This paper, which was done on GPT-4, and a more powerful version than what we have access to via either Bing or OpenAI.com, is astounding: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf

2

BellyDancerUrgot t1_jdpb9pi wrote

I agree that Bing chat is not nearly as good as chatgpt4 and I already know everyone is going to cite that paper as a counter to my argument but that paper isn’t reproducible, idek if it’s peer reviewed, it’s lacking a lot of details and has a lot of conjecture. It’s bad literature. Hence even tho the claims are hype, I take it with a bucket full of salt. A lot of scientists I follow in this field have mentioned that even tho the progress is noticeable in terms of managing misinformation, it’s just an incremental improvement and nothing truly groundbreaking.

Not saying OpenAI is 100% lying. But this thread https://twitter.com/katecrawford/status/1638524011876433921?s=46&t=kwpwSgfnJvGe6J-1CEe_5Q by Kate Crawford (msft research ) is a good example of what researchers actually think of claims like these and some of its dangers.

Until I use it for myself personally I won’t know and will have to rely on what I’ve heard from other phds and masters or PostDocs or professors. Personally, The only thing I can compare to is chatgpt and bing chat and both have been far less than stellar in my experience.

1