Re:GPT-4 is getting worse over time, not better
by lukas099 on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @11:54AM
(#36788460)
It is still ignoring an explicit requirement, which is almost always bad. The user should be able to override what the creator/application thinks is 'strictly better'. Exceptions probably exist, but this isn't one of them.
Re:GPT-4 is getting worse over time, not better
by lolinder on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @12:03PM
(#36788615)
Like I said, I read their requirement differently—the phrase they use is "the code only".
I don't think that including backticks is a violation of this requirement. It's still readily parseable and serves as metadata for interpreting the code. In the context of ChatGPT, which typically will provide a full explanation for the code snippet, I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the instruction.
Re:GPT-4 is getting worse over time, not better
by lukas099 on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @01:43PM
(#36790298)
I understand your point better now. I'm still not sure how I feel about it, because code + metadata is still not "the code only", but it's not a totally unreasonable interpretation of the phrase.
If I'm using it from the API, then all I have to do is strip out the leading backticks and language name if I don't need to check the language, or alternatively parse it to determine what the output language is.
It seems to me that in either case this is actually strictly better, and annotating the computer programming language used doesn't feel to me like extra text—I would think of that requirement as prohibiting a plaintext explanation before or after the code.