The grandparent post seems to believe that the issue is algorithmic complexity and programming aptitude. Personally, I think that all the major LLMs are using the same basic transformer architecture with relatively minor differences in code.
GPT is trained on more data with more parameters than any open source model. The size does matter, far more than the software does. In my experience with data science, the best programmers in the world can only do so much if they are operating with 1/10th the scale of data. That applies to any problem.
It just sounds like 3.5/4 because it was trained on it.
The llama2 is a language model. I imagine the language model behind chatgpt is not much different (perhaps it's better, but not by many months AI research time). It likely also suffers from "mode collapse" issues etc.
But 3.5 also has a lot of systems around it that detects mode collapse and applies some kind of mitigation, forcing the model to give a more reasonable output. Mathematical / logical reasoning questions are likely also detected hand passed on in some form to a separate system.
There's a few public numbers from a handful of foundation models as to performance vs parameter count vs architecture generation. Not being able to compare in detail the architecture of the various closed models nor being more rigorous on training with progressively sized parameter sets, the conclusion at the moment is a general feeling or conjecture.
> Quality Is All You Need.
> Third-party SFT data is available from many different sources, but we found that many of these have insufficient diversity and quality — in particular for aligning LLMs towards dialogue-style instructions. As a result, we focused first on collecting several thousand examples of high-quality SFT data, as illustrated in Table 5. By setting aside millions of examples from third-party datasets and using fewer but higher-quality examples from our own vendor-based annotation efforts, our results notably improved. These findings are similar in spirit to Zhou et al. (2023), which also finds that a limited set of clean instruction-tuning data can be sufficient to reach a high level of quality. We found that SFT annotations in the order of tens of thousands was enough to achieve a high-quality result. We stopped annotating SFT after collecting a total of 27,540 annotations. Note that we do not include any Meta user data.
It's likely OpenAI has invested in this and has good coverage in a larger range of domains. That alone probably explains a large amount of the gap.
Apparently there's a diminishing returns effect on ever enlarging the model.
Is that definitely why? GPT 3.5 and GPT 4 are far larger than 70B, right? So if a 70B, local model like LLaMA can even remotely rival them, would that not suggest that LLaMA is fundamentally a better model?
For example, would a LLaMA model with even half of GPT 4's parameters be projected to outperform it? Is that how it works?
[I'm not super familiar with LLM tech]