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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Potemkin Understanding in Large Language Models
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.
-
How Good LLM-Generated Password Policies Are?
LLM-generated pwquality.conf password policies are frequently inconsistent, hallucinated, and incorrect, so they require validation before deployment in Linux PAM systems.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.