How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?
Authors: Lingjiao Chen, Matei Zaharia, James Zou
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Lingjiao Chen, Matei Zaharia, and James Zou evaluate the performance and behavior of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4
- Study focuses on March 2023 and June 2023 versions of the models
- Four diverse tasks: solving math problems, answering sensitive/dangerous questions, generating code, and visual reasoning
- Both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 show significant variations in performance and behavior over time
- GPT-4 (March 2023) has high accuracy in identifying prime numbers but declines drastically in June 2023
- GPT-3.5 (June 2023) outperforms its March 2023 version in identifying prime numbers
- GPT-4 becomes less willing to answer sensitive questions in June compared to March
- More formatting mistakes in code generation observed for both models during June compared to March
- Continuous monitoring of LLM quality is necessary as behavior can change within a short period of time
- Understanding how LLMs evolve is important for maintaining consistent performance levels across different tasks
Abstract: GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are the two most widely used large language model (LLM) services. However, when and how these models are updated over time is opaque. Here, we evaluate the March 2023 and June 2023 versions of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on four diverse tasks: 1) solving math problems, 2) answering sensitive/dangerous questions, 3) generating code and 4) visual reasoning. We find that the performance and behavior of both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can vary greatly over time. For example, GPT-4 (March 2023) was very good at identifying prime numbers (accuracy 97.6%) but GPT-4 (June 2023) was very poor on these same questions (accuracy 2.4%). Interestingly GPT-3.5 (June 2023) was much better than GPT-3.5 (March 2023) in this task. GPT-4 was less willing to answer sensitive questions in June than in March, and both GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 had more formatting mistakes in code generation in June than in March. Overall, our findings shows that the behavior of the same LLM service can change substantially in a relatively short amount of time, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring of LLM quality.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm compares the title and abstract of this paper with all the papers of the same arXiv category that we have summarized, and finds the closest ones. You can rerun it from time to time: the results improve as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.