Huh

GPT doesn't really learn from people, it's the over-correction by OpenAI in the name of "safety" which is likely to have caused this.

I assumed they reduced capacity to save power due to the high demand
- This. They could obviously reset to original performance (what, they don't have backups?), it's just more cost-efficient to have crappier answers. Yay, turbo AI enshittification...
Sounds good, let's put it in charge of cars, bombs, and nuclear power plants!
- Even getting 2+2=2 98% of the time is good enough for that. :-P
Just for the fun of it, I argued with chatgpt saying it’s not really a self learning ai, 3.5 agreed that it’s a not a fully function ai with limited powers. 4.0 on the other hand was very adamant about being fully fleshed Ai

Amazing, it's getting closer to human intelligence all the time!

The more I talk to people the more I realize how low that bar is. If AI doesn't take over soon, we'll kill ourselves anyways.
I mean, I could argue that it learned not to piss off stupid people by showing them how math the stoopids didn't understand.

It all comes down to the fact that LLMs are not AGI - they have no clue what they’re saying or why or to whom. They have no concept of “context” and as a result have no ability to “know” if they’re giving right info or just hallucinating.

Hey, but if Sam says it might be AGI he might get a trillion dollars so shut it /s

Kind of a clickbait title

"In March, GPT-4 correctly identified the number 17077 as a prime number in 97.6% of the cases. Surprisingly, just three months later, this accuracy plunged dramatically to a mere 2.4%. Conversely, the GPT-3.5 model showed contrasting results. The March version only managed to answer the same question correctly 7.4% of the time, while the June version exhibited a remarkable improvement, achieving an 86.8% accuracy rate."

source: https://techstartups.com/2023/07/20/chatgpts-accuracy-in-solving-basic-math-declined-drastically-dropping-from-98-to-2-within-a-few-months-study-finds/

Not everything is a click bait. Your explanation is great but the tittle is not lying, is just an simplification, titles could not contain every detail of the news, they are still tittles, and what the tittle says can be confirmed in your explanation. The only think I could've made different is specified that was a gpt-4 issue.
Click bait would be "chat gpt is dying" or so.
- I think that's title not tittle
- Mmmmm, titt les
- Tittles are the little dots above i and j, that's why you weren't autocorrected. You're looking for "title" though.
- Oversimplified to the point of lying you could say

ChatGPT went from high school student to boomer brain in record time.

I have seen the same thing, gpt4 was originally able to handle more complex coding tasks, GPT4-turbo is not able to do it anymore. I have creative coding test that I have tested many LLM's with, and only original gpt4 was able to solve it. Current one fails miserable with it.

Perhaps this AI thing is just a sham and there are tiny gnomes in the servers answering all the questions as fast as they can. Unfortuanlty, there are not enough qualified tiny gnomes to handle the increased work load. They have begun to outsource to the leprechauns who run the random text generators.

Luckily the artistic hypersonic orcs seem to be doing fine...for the most part

How ironic... people now need to learn a computer language in order to understand the computer? (instead of so that the computer can understand people)
- I get how chat GPT works [really I don't] but what I don't get is why they don't put add ons into it.
  Like a: is this a math question? Okay it goes to the wolfram alpha system otherwise it goes to the LLM.

Originally, it was people answering the questions. Now it’s the actual tech doing it Lmao

AI fudging is notoriously common. Just ask anyone who lived in the 3rd world what working was like in their country and they'll animate with stories of how many times they were approached by big tech companies to roleplay as an AI.
- A colleague of mine worked for an AI firm a few years back. The AI was a big room of older women with keyboards.
It's often still people in developing countries answering the questions.

This is a result of what is known as oversampling. When you zoom in really close and make one part of a wave look good, it makes the rest of the wave go crazy. This is what you're seeing; the team at OpenAI tried super hard to make a good first impression and nailed that, but then once some time started to pass things started to quickly fall apart.

So they made the math good, and now that they're trying to make the rest good it's screwing up the math?
- It's more they focused super hard on making it have a good first impression that they gave no consideration to what would happen long-term.

The AI feels good, much slower than before

human want make thing dumb

I am wondering why it adds up to exactly 100%. There has to be some creative data handling happened with these numbers.

Maybe the article/stats were generated using another LLM?
People like you are why Mt. Everest had two feet added to its actual height so as to not seem too perfect.
- No I'm not. Why would I use feet to measure a mountain's height?