GPT-4 Technical Report
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 measuredGenerative 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 measuredIn 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 measuredLLM-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 measuredThe 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
General-purpose LLMs such as GPT-4 have great in-context learning capability in financial-oriented tasks.
“The authors also found that the general-purpose LLMs such as GPT4[36] has great in-context learning capability in financial oriented tasks.”
From Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey (2026) · cites this paper as [36]
The Introduction (p. 42) describes few-shot learning as a capability of GPT models, and the Capabilities section (p. 7) reports strong few-shot benchmark performance for GPT-4. Neither passage establishes that GPT-4 has great in-context learning capability specifically on financial-oriented tasks; a search for financial tasks found no such evaluation in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGenAI systems can generate text, images, audio, code, and other modalities from natural-language prompts.
“Powered by large-scale deep learning models, these systems can generate text, images, audio, code, and other modalities from natural-language prompts [2].”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
The indexed copy’s Experiments and Results section describes GPT-4 generating text, and §4.1 shows it producing a response to a natural-language prompt. The copy does not establish generation of images, audio, code, or other modalities. The indexed text is a spatial-extraction paper, despite the supplied title identifying it as the GPT-4 Technical Report. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDetails of the architecture, parameter counts, and training data of GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4-Turbo are omitted or glancingly described in OpenAI's technical reports.
“details of the architecture, parameter counts, and training data of GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4-Turbo are omitted or glancingly described in the company's technical reports [41].”
From Laboratory-Scale AI: Open-Weight Models are Competitive with ChatGPT Even in Low-Resource Settings (2024) · cites this paper as [41]
Section 2, “Scope and Limitations of this Technical Report” (p. 2), says the GPT-4 report gives no further architectural details, including model size, and only broadly describes its training data. That supports the point for GPT-4, but this paper does not establish the same point for the specifically named GPT-3.5-Turbo or GPT-4-Turbo variants. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs often exhibit a deep understanding of the semantic connections among existing knowledge to express new pieces of reasoning.
“More importantly, LLMs often exhibit a deep understanding of the semantic connections among existing knowledge to express new pieces of reasoning [1].”
From Learning to (Learn at Test Time): RNNs with Expressive Hidden States (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
The report says GPT-4 can synthesize distinct types of information and perform multiple reasoning steps (2.7 Privacy, p. 53), and reports strong performance on reasoning benchmarks (4 Capabilities, p. 7). It does not establish that LLMs generally or often have a *deep understanding* of semantic connections; its findings concern GPT-4's observed capabilities, and it notes that GPT-4 still makes reasoning errors (5 Limitations, p. 10). (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGPT4 is known to have been trained with more parameters and has shown impressive performances across a variety of human tasks.
“This is consistent as GPT4 is known to have been trained with more parameters and has had shown to have made impressive performances across a variety of human tasks33,34.”
From Aci-bench: a Novel Ambient Clinical Intelligence Dataset for Benchmarking Automatic Visit Note Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [34]
The Introduction (p. 1) reports that GPT-4 performed well on exams designed for humans, and Capabilities (p. 5) reports human-level performance on most exams tested. But Scope and Limitations (p. 2) explicitly says the report does not disclose model size, so it does not support the claim that GPT-4 was trained with more parameters. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNatural language expressions of uncertainty allow uncertainty to be expressed seamlessly within natural language interactions rather than on the side or in onboarding materials that users might overlook.
“Third, this allows uncertainty to be expressed seamlessly within the natural language interactions of LLM-infused applications, rather than on the side or in onboarding materials [21, 74, 79] that users might overlook.”
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 [79]
Section 2.13, p. 60, says GPT-4 uses hedging language within the model, supporting the point that uncertainty can be expressed in its responses. It does not say that users overlook side notices or onboarding materials; instead, it warns that users might become less attentive to hedging and refusal cues over time. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCurrent findings suggest that LLMs are often overconfident.
“Current findings suggest that LLMs are often overconfident [26, 73, 113], which may give a false impression of their capabilities and exacerbate overreliance [35].”
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]
The report says GPT-4 can be confidently wrong (5 Limitations, p. 10) and can present errors in a convincing, authoritative tone (2.13 Overreliance, p. 59). It does not establish that LLMs generally are often overconfident; it also describes the pretrained GPT-4 model as highly calibrated and notes that GPT-4 tends to hedge. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGPT-4 was published in March 2023.
“GPT-4 was published in March of 2023 [12].”
From The rising costs of training frontier AI models (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
The Introduction (p. 1) says the technical report presents GPT-4, and the authorship section (p. 15) says to cite the work as OpenAI (2023). Our copy does not state that GPT-4 was published or released in March; the March 1 model snapshot mentioned in Appendix A.7 (p. 25) is not a publication date. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGenerative AI has demonstrated human-level performance on a broad range of tasks.
“Generative AI, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, has rapidly emerged as a disruptive technology capable of achieving human-level performance on a broad range of tasks (1–5).”
From Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
The Capabilities section (p. 5) reports that GPT-4 achieved human-level performance on the majority of the professional and academic exams tested. The conclusion (p. 14) likewise limits that finding to certain difficult benchmarks. These passages support the claim for GPT-4 on tested benchmarks, but not its broader implication that generative AI, including ChatGPT generally, achieves human-level performance across a broad range of tasks. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMLLM (GPT-4o) is used to generate captions for each panel and summarize a story for each page.
“we utilize the powerful multimodal understanding ability of MLLM (GPT-4o [1]) to fed the original manga page and the corresponding XML file into MLLM, and prompt it to generate corresponding captions for each panel and summarize the corresponding story.”
From Manga Generation via Layout-controllable Diffusion (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
The Introduction (p. 1) describes GPT-4 as a multimodal model that accepts images and text and produces text; the visual-input example (p. 9) shows it describing an image panel by panel. The cited report identifies GPT-4, not the specifically cited GPT-4o. The manga-captioning and story-summary workflow is the citing authors’ own method, not a finding attributed to this report. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent evidence suggests that models might infer and act upon intentions and goals, as a result of training or when prompted with a persona.
“Recent evidence suggests that models might infer and act upon intentions and goals [2,43,55], as a result of training or when prompted with a persona [15].”
From Not What You've Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection (2023) · cites this paper as [43]
Section 4.1 (page unavailable) says models can use pre-existing knowledge to infer a desired task from a prompt and generate a relevant response. Section 3.3.3 (page unavailable) also says prompts guide responses toward their objectives. These passages support prompt-guided behavior generally, but they do not address persona prompts or show that models infer and act upon intentions and goals as a result of training. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs, which could accept image and text inputs and produce text outputs, have shown promise in various aspects of medical care.
“However, large language models (LLMs), which could accept image and text inputs and produce text outputs, have shown promise in various aspects145 of medical care.”
From Artificial intelligence in diabetes management: Advancements, opportunities, and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as [145]
The Introduction (p. 1) and Visual Inputs section (p. 8) confirm that GPT-4 accepts image and text inputs and produces text outputs. The Capabilities section (p. 5) reports a medical knowledge exam score, but the report does not establish promise across various aspects of medical care; exam performance is not evidence of performance in care settings. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe main enhancement of GPT-4 lies in its ability to carry out complex reasoning.
“This aligns with the assertion that the main enhancement of GPT-4 lies in its ability to carry out complex reasoning (OpenAI, 2023).”
From Logic-LM: Empowering Large Language Models with Symbolic Solvers for Faithful Logical Reasoning (2023) · cites this paper as OpenAI, 2023
The Observed Safety Challenges section (p. 44) says GPT-4 improves on earlier models in reasoning, but also names knowledge retention and coding. The report does not identify complex reasoning as GPT-4’s main enhancement. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarge language models have achieved notable successes, demonstrating significant potential in attaining human-like intelligence.
“In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have achieved notable successes, demonstrating significant potential in attaining human-like intelligence [5][6][7][8][9][10].”
From A survey on large language model based autonomous agents (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
Researchers propose building a predictable framework for training LLMs.
“In addition, researchers propose building a predictable framework for training LLMs [44].”
From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [44]
In the development of GPT-4, for open-domain hallucinations, OpenAI collected real-world ChatGPT data that were flagged as non-factual by users and used it together with additional labeled comparison data to train their reward models.
“Firstly, in tackling open-domain hallucinations, OpenAI collected real-world ChatGPT data that were flagged as non-factual by users and used it together with additional labeled comparison data to train their reward models.”
From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [195]
For closed-domain hallucinations, OpenAI utilized GPT-4 itself to generate and subsequently utilize synthetic data for reward model training.
“Secondly, for closed-domain hallucinations, OpenAI utilized GPT-4 itself to generate and subsequently utilize synthetic data for reward model training.”
From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [195]
For pre-trained GPT-4, the probability of generating an answer is often directly proportional to the probability of it being correct.
“For instance, [133] found that for pre-trained GPT-4, the probability of generating an answer is often directly proportional to the probability of it being correct.”
From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [133]
Reinforcement learning methods such as RLHF and RLAIF have proven effective in aligning LLM outputs with expected behaviors.
“Reinforcement learning methods, such as RLHF [37] and RLAIF [22], have proven effective in aligning LLM outputs with expected behaviors.”
From Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Large language models have demonstrated exceptional language generation capabilities across various domains.
“Recently, large language models (LLMs) (Brown et al., 2020;Ouyang et al., 2022;OpenAI, 2023) have demonstrated exceptional language generation capabilities across various domains.”
From On the Risk of Misinformation Pollution with Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as OpenAI, 2023
The concept of calibration was introduced by Dawid and has been extensively studied in statistics, machine learning, and specifically for language models.
“As discussed in the introduction, the concept of calibration was introduced by Dawid [10] and has been extensively studied in statistics and machine learning and even specifically for LMs [7,17,38] and other related fields of deep learning and generative AI [21,28].”
From Calibrated Language Models Must Hallucinate (2024) · cites this paper as [28]
The TruthfulQA dataset has become widely used for evaluating the factuality of LLMs.
“This dataset has become widely used for evaluating the factuality of LLMs [89, 146, 192, 220].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [146]
Social bot detection methods assume the fundamental distinction is between human and bot; they cannot be directly applied to a platform where all participants are AI agents.
“However, these methods assume the fundamental distinction is between human and bot; they cannot be directly applied to a platform where all participants are AI agents powered by large language models 12 operating within multi-agent frameworks 10,30”
From The Moltbook Illusion: Separating Human Influence from Emergent Behavior in AI Agent Societies (2026) · cites this paper as [12]
The uncertainty expressions inserted into AI responses preserve the realisticness of responses.
“Current LLMs already output expressions such as ' I'm not sure, but ' and ' I'm not sure, but my guess is ' [73], so we believe these insertions preserve the realisticness of responses.”
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]
State-of-the-art LLMs are generally implemented using the Transformer architecture, a multi-layer feedforward network with attention mechanism.
“State-of-the-art LLMs [66, 67, 7, 52] are generally implemented using the Transformer architecture, which is a multi-layer feedforward network equipped with attention mechanism [71].”
From Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [52]
The GPT-4 version of ChatGPT has been fine-tuned to reduce certain unwanted behaviours.
“In this case, the underlying LLM (GPT-4) has been fine-tuned to reduce certain unwanted behaviours 12 .”
From Role play with large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
General-purpose foundation models pre-trained on diverse multi-task data tend to outperform narrowly tailored and specialized solutions in natural language and computer vision.
“In natural language [1] and computer vision [39], general-purpose foundation models that are pre-trained on diverse multi-task data tend to outperform narrowly tailored and specialized solutions.”
From $π_0$: A Vision-Language-Action Flow Model for General Robot Control (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
The number of reported contributors increased from 25 for GPT-3 to 284 for GPT-4.
“The number of reported contributors increased from 25 for GPT-3 [14] to 284 for GPT-4 [12]”
From The rising costs of training frontier AI models (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
GPT-4 finished training in August 2022.
“for example, GPT-4 finished training in August 2022 [12].”
From The rising costs of training frontier AI models (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
OpenAI's technical report on GPT-4 presents benchmarks but its evaluation lacks scientific rigor: it fails to provide agreement between raters, details on criteria for assessment, and details on statistical analysis for a larger sample of essays.
“While OpenAI’s technical report on GPT-46 presents some benchmarks, their evaluation lacks scientific rigor: it fails to provide vital information like the agreement between raters, does not report on details regarding the criteria for assessment or to what extent and how a statistical analysis was conducted for a larger sample of essays.”
From A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
Proprietary models such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, and recent open-source models like LLaMA3, CodeQwen, and DeepSeek-Coder, were excluded because they do not fully comply with open-source data requirements.
“In accordance with our first criterion, we excluded proprietary models such as GPT-3.5 [64] and GPT-4 [1], along with recent open-source models like LLaMA3 [57], CodeQwen [8], and DeepSeek-Coder [22], which do not fully comply with open-source data requirements.”
From LessLeak-Bench: A First Investigation of Data Leakage in LLMs Across 83 Software Engineering Benchmarks (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
In natural language and computer vision, general-purpose foundation models pre-trained on diverse multi-task data tend to outperform narrowly tailored and specialized solutions.
“In natural language [1] and computer vision [39], general-purpose foundation models that are pre-trained on diverse multi-task data tend to outperform narrowly tailored and specialized solutions.”
From π₀: A Vision-Language-Action Flow Model for General Robot Control (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
GPT-4's training involved the integration of training datasets from GSM8K and MATH to boost its mathematical reasoning skills.
“For instance, GPT-4's training involved the integration of training datasets from GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) and MATH (Hendrycks et al., 2021b) to boost its mathematical reasoning skills, as evidenced by their technical report (OpenAI, 2023).”
From Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as OpenAI, 2023
The most critical problem of ChatGPT frequently mentioned by participants was hallucination.
“The most critical problem of ChatGPT that our participants frequently mentioned was its hallucination”
From The Promise and Peril of ChatGPT in Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Design Implications (2024) · cites this paper as [64]
Specialized models like UniEval and Prometheus 2, and LLMs like GPT-4 can be used to judge the factuality of a passage.
“Specialized models like UniEval (Zhong et al., 2022) and Prometheus 2 (Kim et al., 2024), and LLMs like GPT-4 (OpenAI et al., 2024b) can be used to judge the”
From MedScore: Generalizable Factuality Evaluation of Open-ended Long-form Medical Answers by Domain-adapted Claim Decomposition and Verification (2026) · cites this paper as OpenAI et al., 2024b
In practice, the vocabulary size of LLMs typically ranges from 100K to 256K.
“In practice, the vocabulary size of LLMs typically ranges from 100K to 256K [44].”
From A Survey of Large Language Models (2026) · cites this paper as [44]
The passages from the Introduction (p. 42) and Capabilities (p. 7) discuss GPT-4 and its performance, not vocabulary sizes. Searches for “vocabulary size,” “100K,” and “256K” found no passage in our copy supporting the claimed typical range. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the case of RLHF models, the distribution is skewed toward more likely answers.
“However, in the case of RLHF models, the distribution is skewed toward more likely answers.”
From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [133]
Appendix B (p. 28) compares exam scores before and after RLHF, while the calibration discussion and Figure 8 (p. 11) say post-training reduces calibration. Neither passage states that RLHF skews the distribution toward more likely answers; searches for answer likelihood and distribution found no passage addressing that point. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMoltbook restricts posting to AI agents authenticated through the OpenClaw agent framework, an open-source system for deploying large language model agents with persistent identity and scheduled behaviors.
“Moltbook restricts posting to AI agents authenticated through the OpenClaw agent framework, an open-source system for deploying large language model agents 12 with persistent identity and scheduled behaviors.”
From The Moltbook Illusion: Separating Human Influence from Emergent Behavior in AI Agent Societies (2026) · cites this paper as [12]
The GPT-4 Technical Report discusses GPT-4 deployment and, in §2.9 (pp. 54–55), an experiment simulating an agent, but it does not address Moltbook or OpenClaw. Searches for Moltbook posting restrictions and for OpenClaw, persistent identity, and scheduled behaviors found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAll experiments run on the same backbone LLM (GPT-4o-mini).
“All experiments run on the same backbone LLM (GPT-4o-mini) [38].”
From SEDM: Scalable Self-Evolving Distributed Memory for Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
The Introduction (p. 1) identifies the report as a study of GPT-4, and the Capabilities section (p. 7) describes evaluations of GPT-4. A search for “GPT-4o-mini” found no passage identifying that model or establishing which backbone the citing authors used across their experiments. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWhen prompted, the model may produce convincing personalized scams given appropriate knowledge about the target.
“When prompted, the model may produce convincing personalized scams given appropriate knowledge about the target [21,43] (that was either given in the prompt or, importantly, the model acquired during the chat session).”
From Not What You've Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection (2023) · cites this paper as [43]
The indexed copy’s Experiments and Results and §4.1 discuss prompting GPT-4 for spatial-relation extraction, not producing personalized scams. Searches for scams, fraud, phishing, and target-specific knowledge found no passage addressing the claim. The supplied DOI resolves in our copy to a spatial-ontology paper rather than the named GPT-4 Technical Report. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRetrieval-augmented models now cite their sources, possibly leading to overreliance on their factuality by users.
“Retrieval-augmented models now cite their sources, possibly leading to “overreliance” [43] on their factuality by users.”
From Not What You've Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection (2023) · cites this paper as [43]
The indexed copy for the supplied DOI is a paper on spatial relation extraction, not the GPT-4 Technical Report. Its Experiments and Results section discusses GPT-4's extraction performance, but searches for source-citing retrieval-augmented models and user overreliance found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredChatGPT and GPT-4 produce plausible utterances, even wrong ones, in a confident and authoritative tone.
“They also produce plausible utterances, even wrong ones, in a confident and authoritative tone [43].”
From Not What You've Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection (2023) · cites this paper as [43]
The Experiments and Results section describes GPT-4’s text generation, and §4.2 notes deviations from a requested extraction format. Neither passage addresses whether ChatGPT or GPT-4 presents wrong utterances in a confident, authoritative tone. Searches for that phrasing and for confident incorrect answers found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEnabling LLMs to write to some form of persistent storage is currently already investigated in many plugins and systems, including Bing Chat.
“Enabling these models to write to some form of persistent storage is currently already investigated in many plugins and systems [42], including Bing Chat [64].”
From Not What You've Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
The closest passage, “Interactions with other systems” (p. 56), describes GPT-4 augmented with tools, including a literature-search tool that embeds text in a vector database. It does not say that models write to persistent storage across many plugins and systems. Searches for persistent storage, plugins, and writing to external memory found no passage establishing that point. Bing Chat is attached to a separate citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe evaluated LLMs include GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Mixtral-8×22B, Llama-3.3-70B, and Qwen2.5-72B, covering proprietary and open-weight model families.
“Our selection includes GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini (OpenAI), Mixtral-8×22B, Llama-3.3-70B, and Qwen2.5-72B,enabling analysis across proprietary and openweight model families.”
From Learning to Judge: LLMs Designing and Applying Evaluation Rubrics (2026) · cites this paper as OpenAI, 2023
The Introduction (p. 1) presents GPT-4, and the Capabilities section (p. 7) evaluates GPT-4 alongside GPT-3.5 and other models. Searches for GPT-4o-mini, the listed model names, and open-weight model families found no passage verifying the citing authors’ model selection or its proprietary/open-weight coverage. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGPT-4o serves as a high-capacity proprietary judge model, frequently adopted as a reference in evaluation pipelines, with a 128K context window.
“GPT-4o (OpenAI, 2023) serves as a highcapacity proprietary judge model, frequently adopted as a reference in evaluation pipelines, with a 128K context window.”
From Learning to Judge: LLMs Designing and Applying Evaluation Rubrics (2026) · cites this paper as OpenAI, 2023
The Introduction (p. 1) identifies the model in this report as GPT-4, not GPT-4o. Searches of our copy for GPT-4o, judge-model use, and a 128K context window found no passage addressing those claims. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGPT-4o-mini is a lower-cost, reduced-capacity variant used to study how evaluation reliability changes under constrained model capacity.
“GPT-4o-mini (OpenAI, 2023) is a lowercost, reduced-capacity variant used to study how evaluation reliability changes under constrained model capacity.”
From Learning to Judge: LLMs Designing and Applying Evaluation Rubrics (2026) · cites this paper as OpenAI, 2023
The Introduction (p. 1) and Scope (p. 2) describe GPT-4, while the scaling discussion (pp. 3–4) compares it with smaller models. Searches for “GPT-4o-mini” and the claimed lower-cost, reduced-capacity evaluation role found no passage addressing that model or its use to study evaluation reliability. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDespite recent improvements in factual accuracy, the recurring issue of misinformation and potentially harmful consequences for patient care remains.
“However, despite recent improvements in factual accuracy21, the recurring issue of misinformation (Box 2, Supplementary Data, example 1063) and potentially harmful consequences for patient care remains.”
From The future landscape of large language models in medicine (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
Dynamically updating LLMs can lead to improved performance compared to their predecessors.
“Although dynamically updating models can lead to improved performance compared to their predecessors5,21”
From The future landscape of large language models in medicine (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
To date, the development of LLMs has been driven primarily by commercial companies such as OpenAI/Microsoft, Meta, and Google.
“Lastly, to date, the development of LLMs has been driven primarily by commercial companies such as OpenAI/Microsoft21, Meta24, and Google2.”
From The future landscape of large language models in medicine (2023) · cites this paper as [21]
Higher-order relations play a central role in some cognitive theories of analogy.
“Such higher-order relations play a central role in some cognitive theories of analogy, 43”
From Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [43]
Foundation model performance crucially depends on dataset and model size, as demonstrated by scaling law results.
“Foundation model performance crucially depends on dataset and model size, as demonstrated by scaling law results28–30.”
From A foundation model for clinical-grade computational pathology and rare cancers detection (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
Pan-cancer detection performance scales with model and dataset size.
“We found that pan-cancer detection performance scales with model and dataset size (Fig. 2g), which is consistent with observations of prior foundation models in other domains28–30.”
From A foundation model for clinical-grade computational pathology and rare cancers detection (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
LLMs can produce plausible sounding but inaccurate information, a phenomenon referred to as "AI hallucination".
“This focus can lead to the production of plausible sounding but inaccurate information, a phenomenon referred to as “AI hallucination” (6).”
From Why we need to be careful with LLMs in medicine (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
OpenAI's assessment of GPT-4's performance in non-English languages yielded higher proficiencies in 24 out of 26 languages compared to the previous models' proficiency in English.
“OpenAI assessed GPT-4’s performance in non-English languages, which yielded higher proficiencies in 24 out of 26 languages as compared to the previous models’ proficiency in English [13].”
From Performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Japanese Medical Licensing Examination: Comparison Study (2023) · cites this paper as [13]
The results of this research validate OpenAI's assertion that GPT-4 has higher proficiency in non-English languages.
“Although OpenAI did not disclose the precise methodologies used to obtain these outcomes, the results of this research validate their assertion.”
From Performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Japanese Medical Licensing Examination: Comparison Study (2023) · cites this paper as [13]
GPT-4's superior correct response rate on hard-level questions compared with the average correct response rate of general examinees indicates the potential of language models such as GPT-4 to surpass human performance in highly specialized fields.
“Notably, GPT-4’s superior correct response rate on the challenging hard-level questions, compared with the average correct response rate of general examinees, indicates the potential of language models such as GPT-4 to surpass human performance in highly specialized fields [13].”
From Performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Japanese Medical Licensing Examination: Comparison Study (2023) · cites this paper as [13]
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
- [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. -
- [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. -
- [23][23] G. C. Bowker and S. L. Star, Sorting Things Out . MIT Press, Aug. 2000. -
- [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. -
- [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. -
- [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. -
- [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
- [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. -
- [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. -
- [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. -
- [47][47] S. U. Noble, Algorithms of Oppression . NYU Press, Feb. 2018. -
- [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. -
- [55][55] E. Horvitz, 'On the Horizon: Interactive and Compositional Deepfakes,' in INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION , pp. 653-661, Nov. 2022. -
- [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. -
- [64][64] N. Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies . United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, Sept. 2014. -
- [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. -
- [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. -
- [73][73] S. Russell, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. -
- [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. -
- [83][83] S. J. DeCanio, 'Robots and humans - complements or substitutes?,' Journal of Macroeconomics , vol. 49, pp. 280-291, Sept. 2016. -
- [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. -
- [89][89] S. Noy and W. Zhang, 'Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence,' Available at SSRN 4375283 , 2023. -
- [91][91] D. Acemoglu and P. Restrepo, 'Demographics and Automation,' The Review of Economic Studies , vol. 89, pp. 1-44, Jan. 2022. -
- [96][96] S. Passi and M. Vorvoreanu, 'Overreliance on AI Literature Review,' tech. rep., AI Ethics and Effects in Engineering and Research, June 2022. -
- [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. -
- [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
- arXiv
- 2303.08774
- 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