Preprint

GPT-4 Technical Report

OpenAI, Achiam, Josh, Adler, Steven, Agarwal, Sandhini, Ahmad, Lama, Akkaya, Ilge, Aleman, Florencia Leoni, Almeida, Diogo +273 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

We report the development of GPT-4, a large-scale, multimodal model which can accept image and text inputs and produce text outputs. While less capable than humans in many real-world scenarios, GPT-4 exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks, including passing a simulated bar exam with a score around the top 10% of test takers. GPT-4 is a Transformer-based model pre-trained to predict the next token in a document. The post-training alignment process results in improved performance on measures of factuality and adherence to desired behavior. A core component of this project was developing infrastructure and optimization methods that behave predictably across a wide range of scales. This allowed us to accurately predict some aspects of GPT-4's performance based on models trained with no more than 1/1,000th the compute of GPT-4.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • State-of-the-art large language models achieve more than 90% accuracy on popular benchmarks such as MMLU.

    “LLMs now achieve more than 90% accuracy on popular benchmarks such as Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding1”

    From A benchmark of expert-level academic questions to assess AI capabilities (2026) · cites this paper as [3]

    The 4 Capabilities table (p. 7) reports GPT-4 at 86.4% on MMLU, not more than 90%. It reports scores above 90% on other benchmarks, but those do not support the claim's MMLU example. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Generative pretrained transformers are a class of language models particularly powerful for rescoring decoded sequences.

    “Generative pretrained transformers145 are a class of language models that are particularly powerful for this application.”

    From The speech neuroprosthesis (2024) · cites this paper as [145]

    The Abstract (p. 1) identifies GPT-4 as a Transformer-based model pre-trained to predict the next token, supporting the description of GPTs as language models. The report does not establish that they are particularly powerful for rescoring decoded sequences; searches for rescoring and speech-recognition decoding found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In practical applications like chatbots and agents, prompts are often much larger than generated responses such as summaries and code pieces, creating significant inference latency and memory utilization overhead.

    “In practical applications like chatbots and agents, where prompts range from multi-turn conversations to extensive articles or codebases [1, 9, 10], prompts are often much larger than generated responses such as summaries and code pieces, thus creating significant inference latency and memory utilization overhead.”

    From SnapKV: LLM Knows What You are Looking for Before Generation (2024) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Introduction (p. 1) identifies dialogue systems and text summarization as applications, and a visual-input example (p. 37) shows GPT-4 summarizing part of a paper. These passages support conversational and document-based prompts, but do not establish that prompts are often larger than responses or that this creates significant inference-latency and memory overhead. They also do not establish the example of extensive codebases. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LLM-infused search engines already include hedging language.

    “First, LLM-infused search engines already include hedging language [56, 62, 73].”

    From "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust (2024) · cites this paper as [73]

    Section 2.13, “Overreliance” (p. 60), says GPT-4 tends to hedge in its responses and that OpenAI’s mitigations include hedging language within the model. It does not establish that LLM-infused search engines already include such language, so the claim extends the report’s observation to a different type of system. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The emergence of Large Language Models and Vision Large Language Models has revolutionized many AI-related research areas and applications.

    “The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) [2,95,187,191] and the subsequent transition to combined language/vision models (Vision Large Language Models, VLLMs [2,9,14,123,124,196]) has revolutionized many AI-related research areas and applications.”

    From Past, Present, and Future of Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition Using Wearables: A Surveying Tutorial on a Still Challenging Task (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Introduction (p. 1) identifies GPT-4 as a multimodal model processing images and text and says such models have attracted substantial research interest and progress, with potential for wide-ranging applications. The Introduction (p. 42) also describes LLM use across several domains. These passages support the emergence and breadth of LLMs and vision-language models, but do not establish that they have already revolutionized many AI research areas and applications. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [5][5] M. Chen, J. Tworek, H. Jun, Q. Yuan, H. P. d. O. Pinto, J. Kaplan, H. Edwards, Y. Burda, N. Joseph, G. Brockman, A. Ray, R. Puri, G. Krueger, M. Petrov, H. Khlaaf, G. Sastry, P. Mishkin, B. Chan, S. Gray, N. Ryder, M. Pavlov, A. Power, L. Kaiser, M. Bavarian, C. Winter, P. Tillet, F. P. Such, D. Cummings, M. Plappert, F. Chantzis, E. Barnes, A. Herbert-Voss, W. H. Guss, A. Nichol, A. Paino, N. Tezak, J. Tang, I. Babuschkin, S. Balaji, S. Jain, W. Saunders, C. Hesse, A. N. Carr, J. Leike, J. Achiam, V. Misra, E. Morikawa, A. Radford, M. Knight, M. Brundage, M. Murati, K. Mayer, P. Welinder, B. McGrew, D. Amodei, S. McCandlish, I. Sutskever, and W. Zaremba, 'Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code,' July 2021. -
  2. [14][14] M. Mitchell, S. Wu, A. Zaldivar, P. Barnes, L. Vasserman, B. Hutchinson, E. Spitzer, I. D. Raji, and T. Gebru, 'Model Cards for Model Reporting,' in Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pp. 220-229, Jan. 2019. -
  3. [23][23] G. C. Bowker and S. L. Star, Sorting Things Out . MIT Press, Aug. 2000. -
  4. [24][24] L. Weidinger, J. Uesato, M. Rauh, C. Griffin, P.-S. Huang, J. Mellor, A. Glaese, M. Cheng, B. Balle, A. Kasirzadeh, C. Biles, S. Brown, Z. Kenton, W. Hawkins, T. Stepleton, A. Birhane, L. A. Hendricks, L. Rimell, W. Isaac, J. Haas, S. Legassick, G. Irving, and I. Gabriel, 'Taxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models,' in 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , FAccT '22, (New York, NY, USA), pp. 214-229, Association for Computing Machinery, June 2022. -
  5. [34][34] O. Evans, O. Cotton-Barratt, L. Finnveden, A. Bales, A. Balwit, P. Wills, L. Righetti, and W. Saunders, 'Truthful AI: Developing and governing AI that does not lie,' Oct. 2021. -
  6. [36][36] L. Dixon, J. Li, J. Sorensen, N. Thain, and L. Vasserman, 'Measuring and Mitigating Unintended Bias in Text Classification,' in Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , AIES '18, (New York, NY, USA), pp. 67-73, Association for Computing Machinery, Dec. 2018. -
  7. [40][40] S. L. Blodgett, S. Barocas, H. Daumé III, and H. Wallach, 'Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP.' https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14050v2, May 2020. - · arXiv
  8. [41][41] S. Dev, E. Sheng, J. Zhao, A. Amstutz, J. Sun, Y. Hou, M. Sanseverino, J. Kim, A. Nishi, N. Peng, and K.-W. Chang, 'On Measures of Biases and Harms in NLP,' in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: AACL-IJCNLP 2022 , (Online only), pp. 246-267, Association for Computational Linguistics, Nov. 2022. -
  9. [43][43] H. Gonen and Y. Goldberg, 'Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Them,' in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , (Minneapolis, Minnesota), pp. 609-614, Association for Computational Linguistics, June 2019. -
  10. [45][45] E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell, 'On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? ,' in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , (Virtual Event Canada), pp. 610-623, ACM, Mar. 2021. -
  11. [47][47] S. U. Noble, Algorithms of Oppression . NYU Press, Feb. 2018. -
  12. [51][51] S. Kreps, R. M. McCain, and M. Brundage, 'All the News That's Fit to Fabricate: AIGenerated Text as a Tool of Media Misinformation,' Journal of Experimental Political Science , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 104-117, 2022/ed. -
  13. [55][55] E. Horvitz, 'On the Horizon: Interactive and Compositional Deepfakes,' in INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION , pp. 653-661, Nov. 2022. -
  14. [61][61] D. Ganguli, D. Hernandez, L. Lovitt, N. DasSarma, T. Henighan, A. Jones, N. Joseph, J. Kernion, B. Mann, A. Askell, Y. Bai, A. Chen, T. Conerly, D. Drain, N. Elhage, S. E. Showk, S. Fort, Z. Hatfield-Dodds, S. Johnston, S. Kravec, N. Nanda, K. Ndousse, C. Olsson, D. Amodei, D. Amodei, T. Brown, J. Kaplan, S. McCandlish, C. Olah, and J. Clark, 'Predictability and Surprise in Large Generative Models,' in 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pp. 1747-1764, June 2022. -
  15. [64][64] N. Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies . United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, Sept. 2014. -
  16. [68][68] S. M. Omohundro, 'The Basic AI Drives,' in Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Artificial General Intelligence 2008 , (NLD), pp. 483-492, IOS Press, June 2008. -
  17. [69][69] N. Bostrom, 'The Superintelligent Will: Motivation and Instrumental Rationality in Advanced Artificial Agents,' Minds and Machines , vol. 22, pp. 71-85, May 2012. -
  18. [73][73] S. Russell, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. -
  19. [80][80] D. Weininger, 'Smiles, a chemical language and information system. 1. introduction to methodology and encoding rules,' Journal of chemical information and computer sciences , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 31-36, 1988. -
  20. [83][83] S. J. DeCanio, 'Robots and humans - complements or substitutes?,' Journal of Macroeconomics , vol. 49, pp. 280-291, Sept. 2016. -
  21. [84][84] A. Korinek and J. E. Stiglitz, 'Artificial Intelligence and Its Implications for Income Distribution and Unemployment,' in The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda , pp. 349-390, University of Chicago Press, Jan. 2018. -
  22. [89][89] S. Noy and W. Zhang, 'Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence,' Available at SSRN 4375283 , 2023. -
  23. [91][91] D. Acemoglu and P. Restrepo, 'Demographics and Automation,' The Review of Economic Studies , vol. 89, pp. 1-44, Jan. 2022. -
  24. [96][96] S. Passi and M. Vorvoreanu, 'Overreliance on AI Literature Review,' tech. rep., AI Ethics and Effects in Engineering and Research, June 2022. -
  25. [102][102] S. Gehman, S. Gururangan, M. Sap, Y. Choi, and N. A. Smith, 'RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models,' Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 , pp. 3356-3369, 2020. -
  26. [105][105] T. Davidson, D. Bhattacharya, and I. Weber, 'Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasets,' in Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Abusive Language Online , (Florence, Italy), pp. 25-35, Association for Computational Linguistics, Aug. 2019.

Authors
OpenAI, Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., Anadkat, S., Avila, R., Babuschkin, I., Balaji, S., Balcom, V., Baltescu, P., Bao, H., Bavarian, M., Belgum, J., Bello, I., Berdine, J., Bernadett-Shapiro, G., Berner, C., Bogdonoff, L., Boiko, O., Boyd, M., Brakman, A.-L., Brockman, G., Brooks, T., Brundage, M., Button, K., Cai, T., Campbell, R., Cann, A., Carey, B., Carlson, C., Carmichael, R., Chan, B., Chang, C., Chantzis, F., Chen, D., Chen, S., Chen, R., Chen, J., Chen, M., Chess, B., Cho, C., Chu, C., Chung, H. W., Cummings, D., Currier, J., Dai, Y., Decareaux, C., Degry, T., Deutsch, N., Deville, D., Dhar, A., Dohan, D., Dowling, S., Dunning, S., Ecoffet, A., Eleti, A., Eloundou, T., Farhi, D., Fedus, L., Felix, N., Fishman, S. P., Forte, J., Fulford, I., Gao, L., Georges, E., Gibson, C., Goel, V., Gogineni, T., Goh, G., Gontijo-Lopes, R., Gordon, J., Grafstein, M., Gray, S., Greene, R., Gross, J., Gu, S. S., Guo, Y., Hallacy, C., Han, J., Harris, J., He, Y., Heaton, M., Heidecke, J., Hesse, C., Hickey, A., Hickey, W., Hoeschele, P., Houghton, B., Hsu, K., Hu, S., Hu, X., Huizinga, J., Jain, S., Jain, S., Jang, J., Jiang, A., Jiang, R., Jin, H., Jin, D., Jomoto, S., Jonn, B., Jun, H., Kaftan, T., Kaiser, Ł., Kamali, A., Kanitscheider, I., Keskar, N. S., Khan, T., Kilpatrick, L., Kim, J. W., Kim, C., Kim, Y., Kirchner, J. H., Kiros, J., Knight, M., Kokotajlo, D., Kondraciuk, Ł., Kondrich, A., Konstantinidis, A., Kosic, K., Krueger, G., Kuo, V., Lampe, M., Lan, I., Lee, T., Leike, J., Leung, J., Levy, D., Li, C. M., Lim, R., Lin, M., Lin, S., Litwin, M., Lopez, T., Lowe, R., Lue, P., Makanju, A., Malfacini, K., Manning, S., Markov, T., Markovski, Y., Martin, B., Mayer, K., Mayne, A., McGrew, B., McKinney, S. M., McLeavey, C., McMillan, P., McNeil, J., Medina, D., Mehta, A., Menick, J., Metz, L., Mishchenko, A., Mishkin, P., Monaco, V., Morikawa, E., Mossing, D., Mu, T., Murati, M., Murk, O., Mély, D., Nair, A., Nakano, R., Nayak, R., Neelakantan, A., Ngo, R., Noh, H., Ouyang, L., O'Keefe, C., Pachocki, J., Paino, A., Palermo, J., Pantuliano, A., Parascandolo, G., Parish, J., Parparita, E., Passos, A., Pavlov, M., Peng, A., Perelman, A., Peres, F. D. A. B., Petrov, M., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Michael, Pokorny, Pokrass, M., Pong, V. H., Powell, T., Power, A., Power, B., Proehl, E., Puri, R., Radford, A., Rae, J., Ramesh, A., Raymond, C., Real, F., Rimbach, K., Ross, C., Rotsted, B., Roussez, H., Ryder, N., Saltarelli, M., Sanders, T., Santurkar, S., Sastry, G., Schmidt, H., Schnurr, D., Schulman, J., Selsam, D., Sheppard, K., Sherbakov, T., Shieh, J., Shoker, S., Shyam, P., Sidor, S., Sigler, E., Simens, M., Sitkin, J., Slama, K., Sohl, I., Sokolowsky, B., Song, Y., Staudacher, N., Such, F. P., Summers, N., Sutskever, I., Tang, J., Tezak, N., Thompson, M. B., Tillet, P., Tootoonchian, A., Tseng, E., Tuggle, P., Turley, N., Tworek, J., Uribe, J. F. C., Vallone, A., Vijayvergiya, A., Voss, C., Wainwright, C., Wang, J. J., Wang, A., Wang, B., Ward, J., Wei, J., Weinmann, C., Welihinda, A., Welinder, P., Weng, J., Weng, L., Wiethoff, M., Willner, D., Winter, C., Wolrich, S., Wong, H., Workman, L., Wu, S., Wu, J., Wu, M., Xiao, K., Xu, T., Yoo, S., Yu, K., Yuan, Q., Zaremba, W., Zellers, R., Zhang, C., Zhang, M., Zhao, S., Zheng, T., Zhuang, J., Zhuk, W., & Zoph, B.
Affiliations
Rai
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review