>* According to a fun and non-scientific evaluation with GPT-4. Further rigorous evaluation is needed.
I am so sick of seeing these ridiculous claims made about finetuned versions of llama, with 0 scientific rigor behind them.
This is, I believe, the 3rd llama finetune I've seen posted within the past 2 weeks, of which all claim "similar to ChatGPT" quality, while not actually running it through a _single_ of the many openly available language model benchmarks.
I am so sick of seeing these ridiculous claims made about finetuned versions of llama, with 0 scientific rigor behind them.
This is, I believe, the 3rd llama finetune I've seen posted within the past 2 weeks, of which all claim "similar to ChatGPT" quality, while not actually running it through a _single_ of the many openly available language model benchmarks.