Related papers: A Survey on the Real Power of ChatGPT

A Survey on the Real Power of ChatGPT

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00704v2
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 02:38:28 GMT
Title: A Survey on the Real Power of ChatGPT
Authors: Ming Liu, Ran Liu, Ye Zhu, Hua Wang, Youyang Qu, Rongsheng Li, Yongpan Sheng, Wray Buntine,
Abstract summary: ChatGPT has changed the AI community and an active research line is the performance evaluation of ChatGPT. A key challenge for the evaluation is that ChatGPT is still closed-source and traditional benchmark datasets may have been used by ChatGPT as the training data.
Score: 14.45635042532527
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: ChatGPT has changed the AI community and an active research line is the performance evaluation of ChatGPT. A key challenge for the evaluation is that ChatGPT is still closed-source and traditional benchmark datasets may have been used by ChatGPT as the training data. In this paper, (i) we survey recent studies which uncover the real performance levels of ChatGPT in seven categories of NLP tasks, (ii) review the social implications and safety issues of ChatGPT, and (iii) emphasize key challenges and opportunities for its evaluation. We hope our survey can shed some light on its blackbox manner, so that researchers are not misleaded by its surface generation.

Related papers

Exploring the Capability of ChatGPT to Reproduce Human Labels for Social Computing Tasks (Extended Version) [26.643834593780007]
We investigate the extent to which ChatGPT can annotate data for social computing tasks. ChatGPT exhibits promise in handling data annotation tasks, albeit with some challenges. We propose GPT-Rater, a tool to predict if ChatGPT can correctly label data for a given annotation task.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-08T22:04:30Z)
A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets [19.521390684403293]
We present a thorough evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on diverse academic datasets. Specifically, we evaluate ChatGPT across 140 tasks and analyze 255K responses it generates in these datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-29T12:37:21Z)
ChatLog: Carefully Evaluating the Evolution of ChatGPT Across Time [54.18651663847874]
ChatGPT has achieved great success and can be considered to have acquired an infrastructural status. Existing benchmarks encounter two challenges: (1) Disregard for periodical evaluation and (2) Lack of fine-grained features. We construct ChatLog, an ever-updating dataset with large-scale records of diverse long-form ChatGPT responses for 21 NLP benchmarks from March, 2023 to now.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-27T11:33:48Z)
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 Keyphrase Generator? A Preliminary Study [51.863368917344864]
ChatGPT has recently garnered significant attention from the computational linguistics community. We evaluate its performance in various aspects, including keyphrase generation prompts, keyphrase generation diversity, and long document understanding. We find that ChatGPT performs exceptionally well on all six candidate prompts, with minor performance differences observed across the datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-23T02:50:38Z)
Exploring ChatGPT's Ability to Rank Content: A Preliminary Study on Consistency with Human Preferences [6.821378903525802]
ChatGPT has consistently demonstrated a remarkable level of accuracy and reliability in terms of content evaluation. A test set consisting of prompts is created, covering a wide range of use cases, and five models are utilized to generate corresponding responses. Results on the test set show that ChatGPT's ranking preferences are consistent with human to a certain extent.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-14T03:13:02Z)
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)
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.