arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2303.06273cs.CLcs.AI
收藏

ChatGPT的一致性分析

Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT

University of Oxford(牛津大学);Vienna University of Technology(维也纳工业大学)

Myeongjun Erik Jang, Thomas Lukasiewicz

AI总结:

本研究分析ChatGPT和GPT-4在逻辑一致性上的表现,发现它们虽具较强语言理解力,但仍常产生不一致预测,且提示设计、少样本学习及更大模型难以彻底解决该问题。

摘要:

ChatGPT自推出以来广受欢迎。其积极方面已通过众多媒体平台报道,一些分析甚至表明ChatGPT在专业考试中取得了不错的成绩,这进一步支持了人工智能现在可以在工业领域协助甚至取代人类的说法。然而,其他人则怀疑其可靠性和可信度。本文研究了ChatGPT和GPT-4在逻辑一致行为方面的可信度,特别关注语义一致性以及否定、对称和传递一致性的属性。我们的研究结果表明,尽管这两个模型似乎表现出增强的语言理解和推理能力,但它们仍然经常无法生成逻辑一致的预测。我们还通过实验证实,提示设计、少样本学习和采用更大的大型语言模型(LLM)不太可能成为解决LLM不一致问题的最终方案。

英文摘要:

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.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑