Hacker News Reader

Comment by LASR | Hacker News Reader

We have a whole team of folks just watching for these to come out and then go evaluate them.

Short answer: none of them do as well as the OG Davinci-003. Not even close. Even the 3.5 Turbo models from OpenAI don’t do as well.

We throw some sophisticated prompts at them to attempt chain of thought reasoning.

View on HN

That's quite a confusing comment. `davinci-003` is from OpenAI, whereas ChatGPT is some sort of variants more "optimized" for chatting. Said differently, GPT3 or 3.5 is a customized version of `davinci-003`, made for chatting. Please don't ask me on the details, I don't know, but `davinci-003` is not an alternative to ChatGPT

It is an alternative. It’s just more expensive.

>but `davinci-003` is not an alternative to ChatGPT

Why makes you believe that? In my testing davinci does better than gpt-3.5-turbo for most tasks.

I think people, and this article, is about suggesting alternatives (competitors) to ChatGPT. `davinci` is obviously not an alternative, ChatGPT is `davinci` made for chatting. As to whether davinci produces better responses than ChatGPT ... maybe? but that's a different question

Do you have a citation for that?

would be interested in that as well

What kind of things have you seen davinci-003 do better than 3.5 turbo?

We need open benchmarks, clearly. Know any projects in that space?

Could you expand on this a bit more? What types of prompts? What are your evaluation criteria?

This actually sounds fascinating. Not unlike birdwatching! ))

That’s interesting - what about 4?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com