The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to support tasks in software development has steadily increased over recent years. From assisting developers in coding activities to providing conversational agents that answer newcomers' questions. In collaboration with the Mozilla Foundation, this study evaluates the effectiveness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in assisting developers within the Mozilla Firefox project. We conducted an empirical analysis comparing responses from human developers, a standard GPT model, and a GPT model enhanced with RAG, using real queries from Mozilla's developer chat rooms. To ensure a rigorous evaluation, Mozilla experts assessed the responses based on helpfulness, comprehensiveness, and conciseness. The results show that RAG-assisted responses were more comprehensive than human developers (62.50% to 54.17%) and almost as helpful (75.00% to 79.17%), suggesting RAG's potential to enhance developer assistance. However, the RAG responses were not as concise and often verbose. The results show the potential to apply RAG-based tools to Open Source Software (OSS) to minimize the load to core maintainers without losing answer quality. Toning down retrieval mechanisms and making responses even shorter in the future would enhance developer assistance in massive projects like Mozilla Firefox.

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be proficient in correctly answering questions in the context of online discourse. However, the study of using LLMs to model human-like answers to fact-driven social media questions is still under-explored. In this work, we investigate how LLMs model the wide variety of human answers to fact-driven questions posed on several topic-specific Reddit communities, or subreddits. We collect and release a dataset of 409 fact-driven questions and 7,534 diverse, human-rated answers from 15 r/Ask{Topic} communities across 3 categories: profession, social identity, and geographic location. We find that LLMs are considerably better at modeling highly-rated human answers to such questions, as opposed to poorly-rated human answers. We present several directions for future research based on our initial findings.

Despite the ubiquity of large language models (LLMs) in AI research, the question of embodiment in LLMs remains underexplored, distinguishing them from embodied systems in robotics where sensory perception directly informs physical action. Our investigation navigates the intriguing terrain of whether LLMs, despite their non-embodied nature, effectively capture implicit human intuitions about fundamental, spatial building blocks of language. We employ insights from spatial cognitive foundations developed through early sensorimotor experiences, guiding our exploration through the reproduction of three psycholinguistic experiments. Surprisingly, correlations between model outputs and human responses emerge, revealing adaptability without a tangible connection to embodied experiences. Notable distinctions include polarized language model responses and reduced correlations in vision language models. This research contributes to a nuanced understanding of the interplay between language, spatial experiences, and the computations made by large language models. More at https://cisnlp.github.io/Spatial_Schemas/

Lab results are often confusing and hard to understand. Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have opened a promising avenue for patients to get their questions answered. We aim to assess the feasibility of using LLMs to generate relevant, accurate, helpful, and unharmful responses to lab test-related questions asked by patients and to identify potential issues that can be mitigated with augmentation approaches. We first collected lab test results related question and answer data from Yahoo! Answers and selected 53 QA pairs for this study. Using the LangChain framework and ChatGPT web portal, we generated responses to the 53 questions from four LLMs including GPT-4, Meta LLaMA 2, MedAlpaca, and ORCA_mini. We first assessed the similarity of their answers using standard QA similarity-based evaluation metrics including ROUGE, BLEU, METEOR, BERTScore. We also utilized an LLM-based evaluator to judge whether a target model has higher quality in terms of relevance, correctness, helpfulness, and safety than the baseline model. Finally, we performed a manual evaluation with medical experts for all the responses to seven selected questions on the same four aspects. The results of Win Rate and medical expert evaluation both showed that GPT-4's responses achieved better scores than all the other LLM responses and human responses on all four aspects (relevance, correctness, helpfulness, and safety). However, LLM responses occasionally also suffer from a lack of interpretation in one's medical context, incorrect statements, and lack of references. We find that compared to other three LLMs and human answer from the Q&A website, GPT-4's responses are more accurate, helpful, relevant, and safer. However, there are cases which GPT-4 responses are inaccurate and not individualized. We identified a number of ways to improve the quality of LLM responses.

Large-scale language models, like ChatGPT, have garnered significant media attention and stunned the public with their remarkable capacity for generating coherent text from short natural language prompts. In this paper, we aim to conduct a systematic inspection of ChatGPT's performance in two controllable generation tasks, with respect to ChatGPT's ability to adapt its output to different target audiences (expert vs. layman) and writing styles (formal vs. informal). Additionally, we evaluate the faithfulness of the generated text, and compare the model's performance with human-authored texts. Our findings indicate that the stylistic variations produced by humans are considerably larger than those demonstrated by ChatGPT, and the generated texts diverge from human samples in several characteristics, such as the distribution of word types. Moreover, we observe that ChatGPT sometimes incorporates factual errors or hallucinations when adapting the text to suit a specific style.

Chatbots have long been capable of answering basic questions and even responding to obscure prompts, but recently their improvements have been far more significant. Modern chatbots like Open AIs ChatGPT3 not only have the ability to answer basic questions but can write code and movie scripts and imitate well-known people. In this paper, we analyze ChatGPTs' responses to various questions from a dataset of queries from the popular Quora forum. We submitted sixty questions to ChatGPT and scored the answers based on three industry-standard metrics for grading machine translation: BLEU, METEOR, and ROUGE. These metrics allow us to compare the machine responses with the most upvoted human answer to the same question to assess ChatGPT's ability to submit a humanistic reply. The results showed that while the responses and translation abilities of ChatGPT are remarkable, they still fall short of what a typical human reaction would be.

The introduction of ChatGPT has garnered widespread attention in both academic and industrial communities. ChatGPT is able to respond effectively to a wide range of human questions, providing fluent and comprehensive answers that significantly surpass previous public chatbots in terms of security and usefulness. On one hand, people are curious about how ChatGPT is able to achieve such strength and how far it is from human experts. On the other hand, people are starting to worry about the potential negative impacts that large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT could have on society, such as fake news, plagiarism, and social security issues. In this work, we collected tens of thousands of comparison responses from both human experts and ChatGPT, with questions ranging from open-domain, financial, medical, legal, and psychological areas. We call the collected dataset the Human ChatGPT Comparison Corpus (HC3). Based on the HC3 dataset, we study the characteristics of ChatGPT's responses, the differences and gaps from human experts, and future directions for LLMs. We conducted comprehensive human evaluations and linguistic analyses of ChatGPT-generated content compared with that of humans, where many interesting results are revealed. After that, we conduct extensive experiments on how to effectively detect whether a certain text is generated by ChatGPT or humans. We build three different detection systems, explore several key factors that influence their effectiveness, and evaluate them in different scenarios. The dataset, code, and models are all publicly available at https://github.com/Hello-SimpleAI/chatgpt-comparison-detection.

As language and visual understanding by machines progresses rapidly, we are observing an increasing interest in holistic architectures that tightly interlink both modalities in a joint learning and inference process. This trend has allowed the community to progress towards more challenging and open tasks and refueled the hope at achieving the old AI dream of building machines that could pass a turing test in open domains. In order to steadily make progress towards this goal, we realize that quantifying performance becomes increasingly difficult. Therefore we ask how we can precisely define such challenges and how we can evaluate different algorithms on this open tasks? In this paper, we summarize and discuss such challenges as well as try to give answers where appropriate options are available in the literature. We exemplify some of the solutions on a recently presented dataset of question-answering task based on real-world indoor images that establishes a visual turing challenge. Finally, we argue despite the success of unique ground-truth annotation, we likely have to step away from carefully curated dataset and rather rely on 'social consensus' as the main driving force to create suitable benchmarks. Providing coverage in this inherently ambiguous output space is an emerging challenge that we face in order to make quantifiable progress in this area.