The author discusses their changing perspective on OpenAI's GPT-4, an AI text generation model. Initially, they believed that GPT-4's performance had significantly degraded from March to June, but now they think that the model may have declined in some areas but not systematically. They admit that their tests were flawed and biased, and they may have wanted GPT-4 to fail due to their dislike of its tone and the discourse surrounding AI. However, they found themselves defending AI when it was criticized unfairly. They re-ran their tests and found that GPT-4's performance varied, sometimes doing better and sometimes worse. The author concludes that a "good" response from an AI is subjective and depends on various factors, and they will be less confident in their future predictions about AI.
Key takeaways:
The author initially believed that GPT-4 had degraded in performance, but now believes that his tests were flawed and biased.
He admits to having a negative bias towards GPT-4 and the discourse surrounding AI, which may have influenced his initial assessment.
Upon re-running his tests, the author found that GPT-4's performance varied, sometimes doing better and sometimes worse than before, leading him to conclude that there is no consistent pattern.
The author suggests that what constitutes a "good" response from an AI is subjective and can depend on various factors, such as the length of the answer and the specific requirements of the query.
