ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10724v4
• Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 19:52:34 GMT
• Title: ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none
• Authors: Jan Koco\'n, Igor Cichecki, Oliwier Kaszyca, Mateusz Kochanek, Dominika Szyd{\l}o, Joanna Baran, Julita Bielaniewicz, Marcin Gruza, Arkadiusz Janz, Kamil Kanclerz, Anna Koco\'n, Bart{\l}omiej Koptyra, Wiktoria Mieleszczenko-Kowszewicz, Piotr Mi{\l}kowski, Marcin Oleksy, Maciej Piasecki, {\L}ukasz Radli\'nski, Konrad Wojtasik, Stanis{\l}aw Wo\'zniak, Przemys{\l}aw Kazienko
• Abstract summary: OpenAI has released the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) We examined ChatGPT's capabilities on 25 diverse analytical NLP tasks. We automated ChatGPT and GPT-4 prompting process and analyzed more than 49k responses.
• Score: 4.693597927153063
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: OpenAI has released the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) and revolutionized the approach in artificial intelligence to human-model interaction. Several publications on ChatGPT evaluation test its effectiveness on well-known natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the existing studies are mostly non-automated and tested on a very limited scale. In this work, we examined ChatGPT's capabilities on 25 diverse analytical NLP tasks, most of them subjective even to humans, such as sentiment analysis, emotion recognition, offensiveness, and stance detection. In contrast, the other tasks require more objective reasoning like word sense disambiguation, linguistic acceptability, and question answering. We also evaluated GPT-4 model on five selected subsets of NLP tasks. We automated ChatGPT and GPT-4 prompting process and analyzed more than 49k responses. Our comparison of its results with available State-of-the-Art (SOTA) solutions showed that the average loss in quality of the ChatGPT model was about 25% for zero-shot and few-shot evaluation. For GPT-4 model, a loss for semantic tasks is significantly lower than for ChatGPT. We showed that the more difficult the task (lower SOTA performance), the higher the ChatGPT loss. It especially refers to pragmatic NLP problems like emotion recognition. We also tested the ability to personalize ChatGPT responses for selected subjective tasks via Random Contextual Few-Shot Personalization, and we obtained significantly better user-based predictions. Additional qualitative analysis revealed a ChatGPT bias, most likely due to the rules imposed on human trainers by OpenAI. Our results provide the basis for a fundamental discussion of whether the high quality of recent predictive NLP models can indicate a tool's usefulness to society and how the learning and validation procedures for such systems should be established.

Related papers

• Evaluating ChatGPT as a Question Answering System: A Comprehensive Analysis and Comparison with Existing Models [0.0]
  This article scrutinizes ChatGPT as a Question Answering System (QAS) The primary focus is on evaluating ChatGPT's proficiency in extracting responses from provided paragraphs. The evaluation highlights hallucinations, where ChatGPT provides responses to questions without available answers in the provided context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T08:49:18Z)
• Primacy Effect of ChatGPT [69.49920102917598]
  We study the primacy effect of ChatGPT: the tendency of selecting the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We hope that our experiments and analyses provide additional insights into building more reliable ChatGPT-based solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T00:37:28Z)
• Can ChatGPT Reproduce Human-Generated Labels? A Study of Social Computing Tasks [9.740764281808588]
  ChatGPT has the potential to reproduce human-generated label annotations in social computing tasks. We relabel five datasets covering stance detection (2x), sentiment analysis, hate speech, and bot detection. Our results highlight that ChatGPT does have the potential to handle these data annotation tasks, although a number of challenges remain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T08:08:12Z)
• ChatGPT-Crawler: Find out if ChatGPT really knows what it's talking about [15.19126287569545]
  This research examines the responses generated by ChatGPT from different Conversational QA corpora. The study employed BERT similarity scores to compare these responses with correct answers and obtain Natural Language Inference(NLI) labels. The study identified instances where ChatGPT provided incorrect answers to questions, providing insights into areas where the model may be prone to error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-06T18:42:47Z)
• To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
  This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z)
• Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study [121.77986688862302]
  We provide a preliminary meta-evaluation on ChatGPT to show its reliability as an NLG metric. Experimental results show that compared with previous automatic metrics, ChatGPT achieves state-of-the-art or competitive correlation with human judgments. We hope our preliminary study could prompt the emergence of a general-purposed reliable NLG metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-07T16:57:20Z)
• On the Robustness of ChatGPT: An Adversarial and Out-of-distribution Perspective [67.98821225810204]
  We evaluate the robustness of ChatGPT from the adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective. Results show consistent advantages on most adversarial and OOD classification and translation tasks. ChatGPT shows astounding performance in understanding dialogue-related texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T11:01:20Z)
• Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
  ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z)
• Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot. Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community. It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.