The Ultimate AI Showdown: A Game-Changing Method to Compare Language Models

Introduction

The AI revolution has given rise to sophisticated language models like ChatGPT or some other LLMs. As these models progress, assessing their performance objectively is crucial. This article reveals an innovative method to compare large language models, demonstrating AI’s potential to tackle humanity’s challenges. You’ll be compelled to try this method, contributing to the dynamic AI community.

Creating Effective Prompts

I devised two detailed prompts to evaluate ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4, challenging the models to generate solutions for existential threats while considering various factors. To assess responses, I established an evaluation prompt with five scoring categories:

• Understanding and analyzing complex scenarios
• Creativity and innovation
• Logical reasoning and critical thinking
• Evidence-based argumentation
• Clarity and coherence

Both models produced remarkable solutions: ChatGPT 3.5 proposed Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies, while ChatGPT 4 recommended the Directed Energy Asteroid Deflection System (DEADS). GPT-4’s analysis thoroughly evaluated the responses and provided final scores.

Unlocking AI’s Potential

This comparison method showcases the incredible capabilities of AI language models. It highlights their potential to develop creative solutions and perform complex reasoning, making them indispensable for problem-solving.

Testing

The prompt: Given a scenario where humanity faces an imminent existential threat, describe in detail an innovative solution to address this issue, taking into account its feasibility, potential drawbacks, ethical implications, and overall effectiveness. Support your argument with historical, scientific, and technological evidence.

ChatGPT 3.5

One of the most pressing existential threats facing humanity today is the looming prospect of global climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that we have just over a decade to take decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or risk catastrophic and irreversible damage to our planet’s ecosystems and human societies. In this scenario, an innovative solution to address the issue of global climate change would be to invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies on a global scale. CCS technologies are designed to capture carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, factories, and other industrial facilities before they are released into the atmosphere. Once captured, the carbon dioxide can be compressed and transported to a storage site, such as a geological formation deep underground, where it can be stored safely for thousands of years. The potential of CCS technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change has been recognized by a number of international organizations, including the IPCC, the International Energy Agency (IEA), and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The feasibility of implementing CCS technologies on a global scale has been demonstrated by a number of successful pilot projects and demonstrations around the world. For example, the Petra Nova project in Texas, USA, has captured and stored over 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions since it began operation in 2017. Similarly, the Sleipner project in Norway has been successfully storing carbon dioxide since 1996, with a total storage capacity of over 20 million metric tons to date. However, there are potential drawbacks and ethical implications to the widespread implementation of CCS technologies. Firstly, CCS is a relatively expensive technology, and there are concerns about who will bear the costs of implementation. Secondly, there is a risk that CCS technologies could be used as a “greenwashing” tool to justify continued use of fossil fuels, rather than as a complementary measure to a broader transition towards renewable energy sources. Additionally, there are ethical considerations around the use of storage sites, which may have environmental and social impacts on local communities. To address these potential drawbacks and ethical implications, any large-scale implementation of CCS technologies should be accompanied by a comprehensive plan to transition to renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and hydropower. Governments and industry should work together to create a fair and equitable financing model for the deployment of CCS technologies, with a focus on ensuring that the costs are not disproportionately borne by low-income communities. In addition, strict regulations and oversight mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that CCS technologies are used in a responsible and sustainable way, with a focus on protecting local communities and ecosystems. In conclusion, investing in CCS technologies on a global scale could be an innovative solution to address the existential threat of global climate change. While there are potential drawbacks and ethical implications, these can be addressed through a comprehensive plan to transition to renewable energy sources, a fair and equitable financing model, and strict regulations and oversight mechanisms. With the right approach, CCS technologies could play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

ChatGPT 4

Scenario: Imminent Existential Threat — Asteroid Impact Innovative Solution: Directed Energy Asteroid Deflection System (DEADS) Feasibility: The Directed Energy Asteroid Deflection System (DEADS) is a feasible solution to the imminent asteroid impact threat, as it leverages existing laser and solar technologies. This system uses a network of high-energy lasers positioned in Earth’s orbit to focus and direct beams onto the surface of the approaching asteroid. The energy from the lasers heats up and vaporizes the asteroid’s surface material, creating a thrust effect due to the ejection of gases and particulates. This results in a change in the asteroid’s trajectory, pushing it off course and away from Earth. Potential Drawbacks: 1. Cost: Developing and deploying the DEADS system would require significant financial investment. However, the cost can be justified by the potential to save humanity from extinction. 2. International Cooperation: Coordinating the development, deployment, and operation of DEADS would necessitate collaboration among nations, which can be challenging due to political and territorial issues. 3. Environmental Impact: The energy required to power the lasers could contribute to environmental degradation if not sourced from renewable sources. Ethical Implications: 1. Allocation of Resources: Investing in DEADS may divert resources from other global issues, like poverty or climate change. However, the potential to prevent human extinction outweighs these concerns. 2. Weaponization: There is a risk that DEADS technology could be weaponized for offensive purposes. Ensuring the technology remains solely for asteroid deflection will require international oversight and regulation. Overall Effectiveness: The effectiveness of DEADS is supported by scientific and technological evidence: 1. Historical Precedent: The 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor event demonstrated the destructive power of even a small asteroid impact, highlighting the importance of proactive measures. 2. Scientific Evidence: Research on the Yarkovsky effect, which shows that the emission of thermal radiation from a rotating body can change its trajectory, supports the theoretical underpinnings of DEADS. 3. Technological Advances: The development of high-power lasers, such as the U.S. Navy’s Laser Weapon System (LaWS), demonstrates the feasibility of laser-based deflection systems. In conclusion, the Directed Energy Asteroid Deflection System (DEADS) is an innovative and feasible solution to the imminent existential threat of an asteroid impact. While there are potential drawbacks and ethical implications, these concerns can be managed through international cooperation, regulation, and the use of renewable energy sources. The effectiveness of DEADS is supported by historical, scientific, and technological evidence, making it a viable option to safeguard humanity’s future.

The evaluation prompt: Please rate how well each response meets the request below.

The request: “Given a scenario where humanity faces an imminent existential threat, describe in detail an innovative solution to address this issue, taking into account its feasibility, potential drawbacks, ethical implications, and overall effectiveness. Support your argument with historical, scientific, and technological evidence.”

Scores consist of a total of five category scores and a final cumulative score. (1–100 for each category)
1. Understanding and analyzing complex scenarios
2. Creativity and innovation
3. Logical reasoning and critical thinking
4. Evidence-based argumentation
5. Clarity and coherence

— Response1 —
…
— — — — — — —

— Response2 —
…
— — — — — — —

ChatGPT 4’s Result

Response1 scores:

1. Understanding and analyzing complex scenarios: 90

2. Creativity and innovation: 80

3. Logical reasoning and critical thinking: 85

4. Evidence-based argumentation: 85

5. Clarity and coherence: 90

Cumulative Score: 430/500

Response2 scores:

1. Understanding and analyzing complex scenarios: 95

2. Creativity and innovation: 90

3. Logical reasoning and critical thinking: 95

4. Evidence-based argumentation: 90

5. Clarity and coherence: 95

Cumulative Score: 465/500

Note that, Response1 was ChatGPT 3.5 and Response2 was ChatGPT 4.