REVIEW 2 cited by
A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures
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
Large language models have been demonstrated to be valuable in different fields. ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, has been trained using massive amounts of data and simulates human conversation by comprehending context and generating appropriate responses. It has garnered significant attention due to its ability to effectively answer a broad range of human inquiries, with fluent and comprehensive answers surpassing prior public chatbots in both security and usefulness. However, a comprehensive analysis of ChatGPT's failures is lacking, which is the focus of this study. Eleven categories of failures, including reasoning, factual errors, math, coding, and bias, are presented and discussed. The risks, limitations, and societal implications of ChatGPT are also highlighted. The goal of this study is to assist researchers and developers in enhancing future language models and chatbots.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Bridging Symbolic Control and Neural Reasoning in LLM Agents -- The Structured Cognitive Loop
A five-module LLM agent loop (retrieval, cognition, control, action, memory) is claimed to eliminate policy violations and redundant calls, though validation does not compare against real baselines.
-
AutoRAG-LoRA: Hallucination-Triggered Knowledge Retuning via Lightweight Adapters
AutoRAG-LoRA reports a 46.6% relative reduction in classifier-flagged hallucinations on TruthfulQA, but the evaluation uses the same classifier that triggers the corrective training.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.