Comparative Analysis of CHATGPT and the evolution of language models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02468v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 03:11:28 GMT
• Title: Comparative Analysis of CHATGPT and the evolution of language models
• Authors: Oluwatosin Ogundare, Gustavo Quiros Araya
• Abstract summary: This paper highlights the prevailing ideas in NLP, including machine translation, machine summarization, question-answering, and language generation. A strategy for validating the arguments and results of ChatGPT is presented summarily as an example of safe, large-scale adoption of Large Language Models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Interest in Large Language Models (LLMs) has increased drastically since the emergence of ChatGPT and the outstanding positive societal response to the ease with which it performs tasks in Natural Language Processing (NLP). The triumph of ChatGPT, however, is how it seamlessly bridges the divide between language generation and knowledge models. In some cases, it provides anecdotal evidence of a framework for replicating human intuition over a knowledge domain. This paper highlights the prevailing ideas in NLP, including machine translation, machine summarization, question-answering, and language generation, and compares the performance of ChatGPT with the major algorithms in each of these categories using the Spontaneous Quality (SQ) score. A strategy for validating the arguments and results of ChatGPT is presented summarily as an example of safe, large-scale adoption of LLMs.

Related papers

• Chatbots Are Not Reliable Text Annotators [0.0]
  ChatGPT is a closed-source product which has major drawbacks with regards to transparency, cost, and data protection. Recent advances in open-source (OS) large language models (LLMs) offer alternatives which remedy these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T22:28:14Z)
• Is ChatGPT Involved in Texts? Measure the Polish Ratio to Detect ChatGPT-Generated Text [48.36706154871577]
  We introduce a novel dataset termed HPPT (ChatGPT-polished academic abstracts) It diverges from extant corpora by comprising pairs of human-written and ChatGPT-polished abstracts instead of purely ChatGPT-generated texts. We also propose the "Polish Ratio" method, an innovative measure of the degree of modification made by ChatGPT compared to the original human-written text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T06:38:37Z)
• ChatGPT Beyond English: Towards a Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models in Multilingual Learning [70.57126720079971]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as the most important breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP) This paper evaluates ChatGPT on 7 different tasks, covering 37 diverse languages with high, medium, low, and extremely low resources. Compared to the performance of previous models, our extensive experimental results demonstrate a worse performance of ChatGPT for different NLP tasks and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-12T05:08:52Z)
• 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)
• Comparing Abstractive Summaries Generated by ChatGPT to Real Summaries Through Blinded Reviewers and Text Classification Algorithms [0.8339831319589133]
  ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, is a recent addition to the family of language models. We evaluate the performance of ChatGPT on Abstractive Summarization by the means of automated metrics and blinded human reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T18:28:33Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Exploring the Limits of ChatGPT for Query or Aspect-based Text Summarization [28.104696513516117]
  Large language models (LLMs) like GPT3 and ChatGPT have recently created significant interest in using these models for text summarization tasks. Recent studies citegoyal2022news, zhang2023benchmarking have shown that LLMs-generated news summaries are already on par with humans. Our experiments reveal that ChatGPT's performance is comparable to traditional fine-tuning methods in terms of Rouge scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T04:41:30Z)
• A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity [79.12003701981092]
  We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks. We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset. ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T12:35:34Z)
• 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.