specification VS evals

Here's a discussion with more comparisons: https://github.com/serverlessworkflow/specification/issues/2...

Once you have defined the workflow on a diagram, a JSON, following the Serverless workflow specification, is stored in KuFlow. With this specification, we can use all the great tools/libs that are developed.

Among workflow languages out there, we choose Serverless Workflow. It's a vendor-neutral, open-source and community-driven workflow ecosystem. The workflow definition can be written in JSON or YAML format. And then there are SDKs available in various programming languanges, like Java, Go, TypeScript, .NET, Python.

This example happens to be from Google, but you can compare similar config-driven syntaxes from Argo, Amazon, and Airflow. The bottom line is you ultimately find yourself hand-writing the Abstract Syntax Tree of something you can read much better in code anyway:

Fair question.

Evaluate refers to the phase after training to check if the training is good.

Usually the flow goes training -> evaluation -> deployment (what you called inference). This project is aimed for evaluation. Evaluation can be slow (might even be slower than training if you're finetuning on a small domain specific subset)!

So there are [quite](https://github.com/microsoft/promptbench) [a](https://github.com/confident-ai/deepeval) [few](https://github.com/openai/evals) [frameworks](https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness) working on evaluation, however, all of them are quite slow, because LLM are slow if you don't have infinite money. [This](https://github.com/open-compass/opencompass) one tries to speed up by parallelizing on multiple computers, but none of them takes advantage of the fact that many evaluation queries might be similar and all try to evaluate on all given queries. And that's where this project might come in handy.

OpenAI open sourced their evals framework. You can use it to evaluate different models but also your entire prompt chain setup. https://github.com/openai/evals

They also have a registry of evals built in.

"What if" is all these "existential risk" conversations ever are.

Where is your evidence that we're approaching human level AGI, let alone SuperIntelligence? Because ChatGPT can (sometimes) approximate sophisticated conversation and deep knowledge?

How about some evidence that ChatGPT isn't even close? Just clone and run OpenAI's own evals repo https://github.com/openai/evals on the GPT-4 API.

It performs terribly on novel logic puzzles and exercises that a clever child could learn to do in an afternoon (there are some good chess evals, and I submitted one asking it to simulate a Forth machine).

Ah well, I think you just got lucky then, I did the same with the survey. I'll be compulsively checking mine all day today lol. People on Reddit like to say that if you did an Eval which is basically a performance test natively run using code on GPT models, then OpenAI is more likely to favor you when they’re releasing new features. If ydk, then I guess that answers that.

You can get GPT 4 access by submitting an eval if gets merged (https://github.com/openai/evals). Here's the one that got me access[1]

Although from the blog post it looks like they're planning to open up to everyone soon, so that may happen before you get through the evals backlog.

1: https://github.com/openai/evals/pull/778

来源：GitHub - openai/evals: Evals is a framework for evaluating LLMs and LLM systems, and an open-source registry of benchmarks. 8