dearwolf/aider
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Aider-AI/aider.git synced 2025-05-24 06:15:00 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 9

copy

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Paul Gauthier 2023-07-01 09:49:01 -07:00
parent bfd68404d4
commit 09a220f7fb
1 changed files with 27 additions and 15 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

42
docs/benchmarks.md
View file

@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ specifying how GPT should format code edits in its replies.
Different edit formats can range in
complexity from something simple like "return an updated copy of the whole file" to
a much more sophisticated format
that uses the
[function calling API](https://openai.com/blog/function-calling-and-other-api-updates)
that uses
[OpenAI's new function calling API](https://openai.com/blog/function-calling-and-other-api-updates)
to specify a series of specific diffs
To measure the impact of changes to the edit format,
@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ Sometimes it just writes the wrong code.
Other times,
it fails to format the code edits in a way that conforms to the edit format so the code isn't saved properly.
It's worth keeping in mind that changing the edit format often affects both aspects of GPT's performance on the exercises.
It's worth keeping in mind that changing the edit format often affects both aspects of GPT's performance.
Complex edit formats often make it write worse code *and* make it less successful at formatting the edits correctly.
@ -170,13 +170,6 @@ Each edit is a fenced code block that
specifies the filename and a chunk of ORIGINAL and UPDATED code.
GPT provides some original lines from the file and then a new updated set of lines.
While GPT-3.5 is sometimes able to generate this `diff` edit format,
it often uses it in a pathological way.
It puts the *entire* original source file in the ORIGINAL block
and the entire updated file in the UPDATED block.
This is strictly worse than just using the `whole` edit format,
since GPT is sending 2 full copies of the file.
````
Here are the changes you requested to demo.py:
@ -231,10 +224,28 @@ original/updated style edits to be returned using the function call API.
}
```
## GPT-3.5 hallucinates function calls
## GPT-3.5 struggles with complex edit formats
GPT-3.5 is prone to ignoring the JSON Schema that specifies valid functions,
and often returns a completely novel and semantically
While GPT-3.5 is able to pass some exercises using
edit formats other than the `whole` format,
it really struggles with the rest of the formats.
### Pathlogical use of `diff`
While GPT-3.5 is sometimes able to
correctly generate the `diff` edit format,
it often uses it in a pathological way.
It places the *entire* original source file in the ORIGINAL block
and the entire updated file in the UPDATED block.
This is strictly worse than just using the `whole` edit format,
since GPT is sending 2 full copies of the file.
### Hallucinating function calls
When using the functions API
GPT-3.5 is prone to ignoring the JSON Schema that specifies valid functions.
It often returns a completely novel and semantically
invalid `function_call` fragment with `"name": "python"`.
```
@ -249,7 +260,8 @@ with the arguments to the function specified in the `name` field.
Instead, GPT-3.5 frequently just stuffs an entire python
file into that field.
It feels like it might be getting confused by fine tuning that was done for ChatGPT plugins?
It feels like it might be getting confused by fine tuning that was done
for the ChatGPT coder interpreter plugin?
## Randomness
@ -260,7 +272,7 @@ when sending test error output to GPT
it removes the wall-clock timing information that
is normally included by the `unittest` module.
The benchmarking harness also logs sha hashes of the
The benchmarking harness also logs sha hashes of
all the OpenAI API requests and replies.
This makes it possible to
detect randomness or nondeterminism