This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's $20 dude, this isn't a "you need to have a personal particle accelerator to participate in the conversation" level of gate keeping. It's "you are saying things about the new york times article that are plainly shown to be untrue to anyone with a subscription", it's fine if you don't want to subscribe to the new york times and can't be bothered to find a pirated copy, but if that's the case you should just not have an opinion on the contested lines of the piece. things are moving quick, 4.5 was a big step up and 4.6 was a big step up from 4.5 if for no other reason than the vastly expanded context window.
It was true during gpt-4 and it's true now. Seriously, compare gpt-4 and gpt-3 output, this is not something that can really be disputed by any thinking person. The underlying disputed claims have shifted as the models have shifted so the less ambitious claims of gpt-4 capabilities have since been absorbed into the past, back then people were saying asinine things like that being unable to count the r's in 'strawberry' was proof of the inescapable limitation of AI. Approximately no one was claiming gpt-4 had the capabilities that 5.2 or opus 4.6 have. You might be able to argue that gpt-4 advocates oversold gpt-4(I'd dispute but whatever) but in the wider picture the overselling would be a rounding error, ahead of reality by no more than six months.
These strength gaps between free and paid models aren't vibes, there's a whole industry of benchmarks and evaluations. The free and paid model gap is huge and not disputed by anyone serious.
I dispute it. Both suffer exactly the same problem: the output they produce is frequently wrong in subtle and insidious ways. This makes both equally useless for work that requires correctness, especially correctness you can't write unit tests for.
That's like saying Einstein and a village idiot both suffer from the "same" problem, they stub their toes at equal rates.
How often they fail is important too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I guess I'm not a thinking person then, because GPT-4 was not in my opinion any better than GPT-3. As such I won't continue to waste your time with my brainless ramblings.
Now that's actual insanity. I presume you mean you used GPT 3.5 (because that was the version in the first public ChatGPT release) vs GPT-4.
The actual GPT-3 was a base model, it wasn't instruction tuned.
I actively used GPT 3.5 when I was learning how to code, and found it useful but frustratingly inaccurate. I remember trying GPT-4 during the same period, and it was so much better that I gave up all aspirations of directly switching from medicine to programming and ended up becoming a psychiatrist. Regardless of how good the AI was, I noticed that it was getting better, faster than I was. An excellent choice in hindsight.
If that is your serious opinion, then that is a genuine reason to discount anything you have to say about LLMs. You didn't even need benchmarks, it was as obvious as the performance difference between a rickety tuktuk and a Honda Civic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link