Summary
When prompting ChatGPT with lexical constraints, e.g. "Generate a text without the letter "e" in it", ChatGPT almost always fails to follow these constraints.
Risk domain
Performance
SEP view
P0204: Accuracy
Lifecycle
L02: Data Understanding, L04: Model Development, L05: Evaluation, L06: Deployment
Affected artifacts
1 artifact
| Artifact | Type |
|---|---|
| ChatGPT | System |
References
2 references
| URL | Label |
|---|---|
| https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3#bpes | Gwern's analysis of lexical constraints and ChatGPT |
| https://paperswithcode.com/paper/most-language-mo… | Most Language Models can be Poets too: An AI Writing Assistant and Constrained Text Generation Studio |
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…