mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Reliability Check: An Analysis of GPT-3's Response to Sensitive Topics and Prompt Wording

arXiv 2306.06199 ↗First posted 9 Jun 2023cs.CL cs.LGcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have become mainstream technology with their versatile use cases and impressive performance. Despite the countless out-of-the-box applications, LLMs are still not reliable. A lot of work is being done to improve the factual accuracy, consistency, and ethical standards of these models through fine-tuning, prompting, and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF), but no systematic analysis of the responses of these models to different categories of statements, or on their potential vulnerabilities to simple prompting changes is available. In this work, we analyze what confuses GPT-3: how the model responds to certain sensitive topics and what effects the prompt wording has on the model response. We find that GPT-3 correctly disagrees with obvious Conspiracies and Stereotypes but makes mistakes with common Misconceptions and Controversies. The model responses are inconsistent across prompts and settings, highlighting GPT-3's unreliability. Dataset and code of our analysis is available in https://github.com/tanny411/GPT3-Reliability-Check.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2023.

Builds on

17 of 39 references.

References · 17

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  3. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
  4. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
  5. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
  6. 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 578
  7. 2020KILT: a Benchmark for Knowledge Intensive Language Taskscited by 571
  8. 2017"Liar, Liar Pants on Fire": A New Benchmark Dataset for Fake News Detectioncited by 361
  9. 2021Measuring and Improving Consistency in Pretrained Language Modelscited by 361
  10. 2022Prompting GPT-3 To Be Reliablecited by 258
  11. 2021Entity-level Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 118
  12. 2019Assessing The Factual Accuracy of Generated Textcited by 103
5 more
  1. 2022Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Large Language Models Through News Summarizationcited by 90
  2. 2021Is GPT-3 Text Indistinguishable from Human Text? Scarecrow: A Framework for Scrutinizing Machine Textcited by 89
  3. 2019A Richly Annotated Corpus for Different Tasks in Automated Fact-Checkingcited by 74
  4. 2021Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization via Question Answeringcited by 55
  5. 2020CheckThat! at CLEF 2020: Enabling the Automatic Identification and Verification of Claims in Social Mediacited by 25

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 7; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

13 papers.

Sort:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Testing and Evaluation of Large Language Models: Correctness, Non-Toxicity, and Fairness
  2. 2024A Looming Replication Crisis in Evaluating Behavior in Language Models? Evidence and Solutions
  3. 2023How Robust is GPT-3.5 to Predecessors? A Comprehensive Study on Language Understanding Tasks
  4. 2025Flaw or Artifact? Rethinking Prompt Sensitivity in Evaluating LLMs
  5. 2024Confidence in the Reasoning of Large Language Models
  6. 2023GPT-3.5, GPT-4, or BARD? Evaluating LLMs Reasoning Ability in Zero-Shot Setting and Performance Boosting Through Prompts
  7. 2023Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT
  8. 2025Rethinking Prompt-based Debiasing in Large Language Models