HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
lchen001
LLMDrift
Jupyter Notebook2023–2023
lchen001 / LLMDrift

LLMDrift

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

4Distinct people
5Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
336GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week5 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-07-19 14:30:44 UTC to 2023-08-26 11:11:12 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

012342023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 2 submissions, 2 commentsJul 172023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJul 312023-08-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsAug 21

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jul 172023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC422
Jul 242023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 312023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 72023-08-07 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 142023-08-14 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 212023-08-21 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-28 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

5 sources
> 2. GPT-4 does not seem to have improved on real-world coding tasks since March, so it's unclear where any purported HumanEval gains could've come from Once Markdown formatting is accounted for, the June model improves answers on the Leetcode questions from the LLM Drift paper testing to 70% (35/50) vs the March model's 52% (26/50). see: * https://github.com/lchen001/LLMDrift/blob/main/generation/ * https://twitter.com/Si_Boehm/status/1681801371656536068
In Beating GPT-4 on HumanEval with a fine-tuned CodeLlama-34B
Just as a followup for those interested, after reading the paper and some more critique: The paper is mostly ok in that it points out model drift and the importance of making sure you use API versions. One good thing is that the full dataset/methodology was published on Github: https://github.com/lchen001/LLMDrift (everyone should do this!) so it was easy to replicate/validate, but there are some issues: * Simon Boehm stripped the markdown output from the June model output and shows that it actually performs signficantly better than the March update when the Markdown is stripped - 70% correct vs 52% correct. https://twitter.com/Si_Boehm/status/1681801371656536068 - Matei Zaharia (co-author) replies that the point of the paper is that you have to watch out for formatting changes in the LLM, but Matei also announced in the parent tweet "We
Read the rest
found big changes including some large decreases in some problem-solving tasks," so which is it? https://twitter.com/matei_zaharia/status/1681467961905926144 - I also think the authors should have been well aware that their prominent Figure 1 would be interpreted as reduced capabilities and that they shouldn't be implying that it is. I'm just going to say it's problematic and leave it at that... * Narayanan (and colleague Sayash Kappor) published an analysis of the Primality Test https://www.aisnakeoil.com/p/is-gpt-4-getting-worse-over-tim... - basically, the March model didn't do any better than the June model. It's just that one tends to say yes, and one tends to say no, and the Prime factor questions that the authors asked were all "yes." They showed by flipping the questions, suddenly the June update does way better. So one, from a methodology perspective the distribution of yes/no should be equal, but secondly neither model actually has the capability to factor primes, so what's the point of judging if it's correct or not? If the June update for some reason said yes 500 times it would have scored a 100%, but wouldn't mean it actually made a difference on the results. Seems like a pointless test. * Another thing to note from looking at the code is that they call the API w/ temperature 0.1, not 0.0 - LLM responses are non-deterministic even at 0.0, but I don't know why you'd set it to 0.1 in the first place. The question has been asked: https://github.com/lchen001/LLMDrift/issues/2 I wrote up a more points as well, will just leave a link for those interested: https://fediverse.randomfoo.net/notice/AXsoIewi72IUeXL888
In GPT-4 is getting worse over time, not better

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.