We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
我们早期对比了ChatGLM-3和GPT4,实验发现后者效果更好。不过目前针对Question描述比较清楚的VQA数据,我们认为可以使用GLM4生成文本推理步骤。
Sorry, something went wrong.
我注意到在cogcom/data/tools/gpt4.py中调用的模型api为gpt-3.5-turbo而不是gpt4,考虑到api的费用问题,是不是可以用gpt-3.5-turbo生成的com数据就能达到较为理想的效果? @qijimrc
cogcom/data/tools/gpt4.py
gpt-3.5-turbo
Hi terry, 针对问题描述较为清楚的VQA数据,采用gpt-3.5-turbo也能获得较多的positive chains(我们测试GPT4生成positive chains的占比在35%左右,可以作为对比)。
No branches or pull requests
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: