Over just a few months, ChatGPT went from correctly answering a simple math problem 98% of the time to just 2%, study finds. Researchers found wild fluctuations—called drift—in the technology’s abi…::ChatGPT went from answering a simple math correctly 98% of the time to just 2%, over the course of a few months.
GPT was always really bad at math.
I’ve asked it word problems before and it fails miserably, giving me insane answers that make no sense. For example, I was curious once how many stars you would expect to find in a region of the milky way with a radius of 650 light years, assuming an average of 4 light years per star. The first answer it gave me was like a trillion stars or something, and I asked it if that makes sense to it, a trillion stars in a subset of space known to only contain about a quarter of that number, and it gave me a wildly different answer. I asked it to check again and it gave me a third wildly different number.
Sometimes it doubles down on wrong answers.
GPT is amazing but it’s got a long way to go.
I used GPT4 the other day and it worked perfectly for calculating formulas of straight lines on linear-log plots but maybe I was the 2%
This paper is pretty unbelievable to me in the literal sense. From a quick glance:
First of all they couldn’t even bother to check for simple spelling mistakes. Second, all they’re doing is asking whether a number is prime or not and then extrapolating the results to be representative of solving math problems.
But most importantly I don’t believe for a second that the same model with a few adjustments over a 3 month period would completely flip performance on any representative task. I suspect there’s something seriously wrong with how they collect/evaluate the answers.
And finally, according to their own results, GPT3.5 did significantly better at the second evaluation. So this title is a blatant misrepresentation.
Also the study isn’t peer-reviewed.
“AI” taking our jobs and all that huh
