Technology

69892 readers

33 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

ChatGPT Answers Programming Questions Incorrectly 52% of the Time: Study (gizmodo.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The research from Purdue University, first spotted by news outlet Futurism, was presented earlier this month at the Computer-Human Interaction Conference in Hawaii and looked at 517 programming questions on Stack Overflow that were then fed to ChatGPT.

“Our analysis shows that 52% of ChatGPT answers contain incorrect information and 77% are verbose,” the new study explained. “Nonetheless, our user study participants still preferred ChatGPT answers 35% of the time due to their comprehensiveness and well-articulated language style.”

Disturbingly, programmers in the study didn’t always catch the mistakes being produced by the AI chatbot.

“However, they also overlooked the misinformation in the ChatGPT answers 39% of the time,” according to the study. “This implies the need to counter misinformation in ChatGPT answers to programming questions and raise awareness of the risks associated with seemingly correct answers.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

GPT-2 came out a little more than 5 years ago, it answered 0% of questions accurately and couldn't string a sentence together.

GPT-3 came out a little less than 4 years ago and was kind of a neat party trick, but I'm pretty sure answered ~0% of programming questions correctly.

GPT-4 came out a little less than 2 years ago and can answer 48% of programming questions accurately.

I'm not talking about mortality, or creativity, or good/bad for humanity, but if you don't see a trajectory here, I don't know what to tell you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-ceo-altman-says-davos-future-ai-depends-energy-breakthrough-2024-01-16/

Speaking at a Bloomberg event on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Altman said the silver lining is that more climate-friendly sources of energy, particularly nuclear fusion or cheaper solar power and storage, are the way forward for AI.

"There's no way to get there without a breakthrough," he said. "It motivates us to go invest more in fusion."

It's a good trajectory, but when you have people running these companies saying that we need "energy breakthroughs" to power something that gives more accurate answers in the face of a world that's already experiencing serious issues arising from climate change...

It just seems foolhardy if we have to burn the planet down to get to 80% accuracy.

I'm glad Altman is at least promoting nuclear, but at the same time, he has his fingers deep in a nuclear energy company, so it's not like this isn't something he might be pushing because it benefits him directly. He's not promoting nuclear because he cares about humanity, he's promoting nuclear because has deep investment in nuclear energy. That seems like just one more capitalist trying to corner the market for themselves.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Seeing the trajectory is not ultimate answer to anything.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps there is some line between assuming infinite growth and declaring that this technology that is not quite good enough right now will therefore never be good enough?

Blindly assuming no further technological advancements seems equally as foolish to me as assuming perpetual exponential growth. Ironically, our ability to extrapolate from limited information is a huge part of human intelligence that AI hasn't solved yet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

will therefore never be good enough?

no one said that. but someone did try to reject the fact it is demonstrably bad right now, because "there is a trajectory".