Is it weird to refer to GPT-3.5 as "state of the art" when GPT-4 is right there? Actually the paper uses davinci interchangeably with GPT-3.5 (sometimes without a hyphen) and ChatGPT.
So many people seem to confuse beating GPT-3.5 in general to be the hallmark. It's immediate hint they have no idea. There's a clear and vast difference between GPT-4 and 3.5, making GPT-3.5 almost worthless except for fast summarisation tasks perhaps.
You really haven't done much with those models if they seem remotely comparable.
To me GPT-3.5 can just summarise and provide general answers to questions, but GPT-4 can actually understand nuance and to me what seems to be reasoning.
You really haven't done much with those models if they seem remotely comparable.
To me GPT-3.5 can just summarise and provide general answers to questions, but GPT-4 can actually understand nuance and to me what seems to be reasoning.