-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
New issue
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
feat: updated prompt with author and allComments #123
feat: updated prompt with author and allComments #123
Conversation
Updated Relevance scores, with scoring for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Consider using o1-mini? I have access to it now from our org key. I am not sure if it is better for this kind of task. I am under the impression that it is more impressive when passing in minimal information/context.
Given that we are passing in all the context, maybe 4o is superior.
Also you need to program it to respond with json (not via the prompt, but by passing in the config to the openai object)
Could you please share the key for o1 through some other channel with a billing limit. Just letting you know it would be a bit expensive with o1 models. |
I don't think it has a limit I just quickly made from my phone and dm you key on telegram. |
You mean this one ? The prompt uses that already. I think o1 does not support |
Okay 4o maybe is best |
Comments Evaluated:
GPT 4o Output: [
{
"id": 1948916343,
"connection_score": 0.6
},
{
"id": 1948989989,
"connection_score": 0.5
},
{
"id": 1949195772,
"connection_score": 0.7
},
{
"id": 1949564869,
"connection_score": 0.8
},
{
"id": 1949635137,
"connection_score": 0.9
},
{
"id": 1949639196,
"connection_score": 0.3
}
] o1 Mini Output: {
"1948930217": 0.8,
"1949201722": 0.7,
"1949203681": 0.9,
"1949633751": 0.0,
"1949639054": 0.3,
"1949642845": 0.6
} I think GPT 4o appear to be more on point, than o1 mini. |
I think this is good to go. Let me know if there are any other changes apart from the merge conflicts. For QA output.html |
Well you also spelled related wrong but yeah you can fix the merge conflict and your spelling. Needs to pass CI before merging. |
6541cc8
to
db7f3f5
Compare
@0x4007 Could you please approve the workflow runs ? |
It's not stable. Needs exponential backoff |
3ed62ff
to
abde270
Compare
CI should be passing now. Jest passes for me locally Workflow Run. @0x4007 Could you the workflows again ? |
Resolves #97