this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
163 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37718 readers
585 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
163
[Fortune] Over just a few months, ChatGPT went from correctly answering a simple math problem 98% of the time to just 2%, study finds (archive.ph)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Researchers found that ChatGPT's performance varied significantly over time, showing "wild fluctuations" in its ability to solve math problems, answer questions, generate code, and do visual reasoning between March and June 2022. In particular, ChatGPT's accuracy in solving math problems dropped drastically from over 97% in March to just 2.4% in June for one test. ChatGPT also stopped explaining its reasoning for answers and responses over time, making it less transparent. While ChatGPT became "safer" by avoiding engaging with sensitive questions, researchers note that providing less rationale limits understanding of how the AI works. The study highlights the need to continuously monitor large language models to catch performance drifts over time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] peter@feddit.uk 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think this might be what stops AI from taking over as much as people fear. If I was a business owner I wouldn't want to put my trust in a black box if I can pay someone to ensure it works exactly to my specification

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

As someone getting an MBA that hates the idea of labor being displaced by AI, if I were an unethical business owner that treated labor as a cost to minimize, I'd use AI to generate content that's "good enough" and use fewer people to make it exactly to my specification.

[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know, I wouldn't care about being replaced by a machine, as long as I get UBI. Then I could just do what I like to do and wouldn't need to care whether I actually make money with it.

[–] chahk@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not how UBI is supposed to work. You would certainly have enough time to do what you like, just not the resources. Any money you'd get would only cover the absolute necessities like shelter and food.

[–] snowbell@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

According to who? Who defines what a "basic necessity" is? It could easily be argued that hobbies are a necessity.

[–] Fenzik@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You uh… you might have chosen the wrong field if you hate displacing labour

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Or the right one if I want to "be the change I want to see in the world".

[–] takeda@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

And that's exactly how it will be used

[–] lemmie689@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

I think that's what part of the Hollywood writers strike is about. AI generating "good enough" scripts, and studios shelling a few peanuts for some writers to finalize them.