News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper by starbugs on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @06:43PM (#38538537)
> You can't start with a statement about clinical trials not being perfectly reproducible and that's fine, then say this.

Nobody said that to begin with. Re-read their comment.

> If people are lying about an extremely important part of their product [...]

Nobody is alleging that anyone is lying. It's just that we cannot be sure what the research actually refers to, because of the nature of a proprietary/closed model.

> This is a little silly because these models are available extremely easily and at a pay-as-you-go pricing.

What does this have to do with the parent comment? I don't think it's appropriate to call anyone here silly, just because you don't like their comment and don't have good counter arguments.

Re:Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper by IanCal on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @06:21PM (#38550838)
> Nobody is alleging that anyone is lying.

Let's be clear, you have made an explicit claim that openai are lying.

> What does this have to do with the parent comment?

Because many other fields would kill for this level of reproducibility, grab an API key, spend a few quid running a script and you can get the results yourself.