Adam Wiggins @adamwiggins.com · Dec 30

The result! • gpt-4o started at 58% accuracy, but I "hillclimbed" by editing the prompt to get to 88% • gpt-4o-mini slightly worse, slightly faster (9 points less accurate 25% faster) • llama3.2 is private, reasonably fast, and works offline—but I only got it to 61% accuracy

1 likes 1 replies

?

Replies

Adam Wiggins · Dec 30

But the real win was fine-tuning. I gave 120 samples to a gpt-4o-mini fine-tuning job. The resulting model got close to 4o in accuracy (87% vs 88%), but is 29% faster (450ms vs 640ms response time).