Looks interesting, but doesn’t seem better than GPT-4. GPT-4 scored 67% on the Human Eval test, whereas Code Llama scored only a 53.7%, which isn’t a trivial difference. Bit disingenuous of Meta to claim it to be “on par” with ChatGPT.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Looks interesting, but doesn’t seem better than GPT-4. GPT-4 scored 67% on the Human Eval test, whereas Code Llama scored only a 53.7%, which isn’t a trivial difference. Bit disingenuous of Meta to claim it to be “on par” with ChatGPT.
They seem to qualify a bit below that they mean GPT-3.5-Turbo, which does often get referred to as ChatGPT (in contrast to GPT-4).