Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.06273 v3 pith:T3K63JFF submitted 2023-03-11 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords chatgptconsistencyconsistentevenlanguagellmslogicallymodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

ChatGPT has gained a huge popularity since its introduction. Its positive aspects have been reported through many media platforms, and some analyses even showed that ChatGPT achieved a decent grade in professional exams, adding extra support to the claim that AI can now assist and even replace humans in industrial fields. Others, however, doubt its reliability and trustworthiness. This paper investigates the trustworthiness of ChatGPT and GPT-4 regarding logically consistent behaviour, focusing specifically on semantic consistency and the properties of negation, symmetric, and transitive consistency. Our findings suggest that while both models appear to show an enhanced language understanding and reasoning ability, they still frequently fall short of generating logically consistent predictions. We also ascertain via experiments that prompt designing, few-shot learning and employing larger large language models (LLMs) are unlikely to be the ultimate solution to resolve the inconsistency issue of LLMs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Potemkin Understanding in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs frequently pass definition questions yet fail to use the same concepts in classification, generation, and editing tasks, a gap the authors call potemkin understanding.

  2. How Good LLM-Generated Password Policies Are?

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM-generated pwquality.conf password policies are frequently inconsistent, hallucinated, and incorrect, so they require validation before deployment in Linux PAM systems.

Pith tools